Ship of Fools: Hell: Enlighten me, leo

Thread: Hell: Enlighten me, leo Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000998

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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 ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

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

Posted by Sinisterial (# 5834) on :

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.

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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".

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

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

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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 ]

Posted by butler (# 11157) on :

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]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

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.)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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]

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?

Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :

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.

Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :

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?

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

I guess the priest could always be forgiven for manslaughter [Ultra confused]

Blessings craig b

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

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."

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

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.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

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?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

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?

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

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.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

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.

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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?

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by butler (# 11157) on :

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 ??

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

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?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

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

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

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

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

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.

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

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.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

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.

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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]

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Oh I agree about the serious problem.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

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?

Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :

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?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I accept that, but I imagine that theoretical child I described would not have the benefit of that kind of moral education.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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?

Posted by LatePaul (# 37) on :

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?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am with Ingob, Eliab and Amos.

I also think a condition of absolution ought to be that the perpretrator seeks help - the touble is, there is little help available, just prison.

Experts say that child abusers cannot change, but surely the gospel says that all of us who are sinners, in whatever way, can change, whatever our sins.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

Leo, there's sinning, then there's child abuse.

I swore at someone the other day, that's a sin.

Someone's been sexually assaulting kids for the last 20 years, which is worse?

Again, a lot of evidence points to the fact that many paedophiles never believe that they have done anything wrong. That's why I don't think they're looking for absolution, but more to wipe their conscience clear.

For me this is a key difference between some christians and myself. Some people think that the gospel says that everyone can repent, and that the confessional should be completely confidential. I think that where child-abuse is concerned, it isn't justifiable to keep it under your hat.

If a doctor or teacher is told/discovers that someone is abusing children, they have a duty to report it.

As far as I'm concerned, the right of paedophiles to feel their crimes will be held in confidence is rubbish. Anyone who harms children in this way should be immediately reported to the authorities, and put away for a long, long time.

That's what I think, but I'm aware that it must be incredibly difficult to bin certain highly important aspects in your religion, but to my mind that's something that religions need to adapt to.

Also, regarding the bit you mentioned about the Gospel telling us that people can always repent, I found this in the bible

quote:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Now I know it doesn't mention child abuse outright, but it's certainly clear that leading children astray is a serious offence.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

That is why I cannot condone violence.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
I am sure I've seen arguments that a lot of abusers start quite young, and that seriousness of offences escalates. <snip>

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.

One has to be careful in assuming that a child who is exhibiting hypersexual behavior is necessarily being abused. Hypersexual behavior is a common symptom of early-onset bipolar disorder. It is an extremely distressing symptom of an extremely serious psychiatric disorder.

If the child is exhibiting hypersexual behavior, the parents are generally very much aware that, in seeking help for their child, they are risking being accused of abuse, with all that entails. It's a terrible position for a parent to be in.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I always find this debate rather perpelexing. Clergy do not, as a rule, wake up in the morning to find a queue of impenitent sinners who happen to want to confess a heinous mortal sin which is also a civil crime but have no desire for absolution waiting outside the vicarage door.

My view is that the Seal of the Confessional is absolute and a priest has no business breaking it, no matter how heinous the crime confessed, but do you really think that officious governments of all stripes would tolerate such a thing, if they thought they could make a serious dent in the crime rate by abolishing it? I'm surprised that Charles Clarke hasn't already suggested the idea.

Broadly speaking, my understanding is that most padeophiles successfully rationalise their behaviour to themselves and I would imagine that in most instances a child abuser who makes a confession does so because they actually want to end the situation. I would think it astonishingly rare for a child abuser to confess their sin to a priest with no intention or desire to rectify the situation. A priest in those circumstances faces an agonising situation but it isn't really part of the daily hustle and bustle of parish life.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Sexually disinhibited behaviour in itself no, and it could be a sign of all sorts of things - but it should be treated as a serious problem, if a child is developing bipolar disorder that is a serious problem.

However, I have heard that physicians in the states are diagnosing children as young as two with bipolar disorder and I woudl be extremely sceptical of this. The diagnostic criteria are not designed to be used for a child this age, and therefore do not take account of developmental issues, and the drugs used to treat are very powerful and have not been properely evaluated for use in young children - this article from the Plos collection on disease mongering is very interesting (though I have my doubts about the author's view of subjective and objective measures) it illustrates the role of drug manufacturers in these processes.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Sorry, the above was in reply to Josephine - crosspost strikes again [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I always find this debate rather perpelexing. Clergy do not, as a rule, wake up in the morning to find a queue of impenitent sinners who happen to want to confess a heinous mortal sin which is also a civil crime but have no desire for absolution waiting outside the vicarage door.

I'm sure I was told that these kinds of things used to take place in old gangster films.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Leo, there's sinning, then there's child abuse.

I swore at someone the other day, that's a sin.

Someone's been sexually assaulting kids for the last 20 years, which is worse?

...Anyone who harms children in this way should be immediately reported to the authorities, and put away for a long, long time.....Also, regarding the bit you mentioned about the Gospel telling us that people can always repent, I found this in the bible

quote:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Now I know it doesn't mention child abuse outright, but it's certainly clear that leading children astray is a serious offence.

There are those diehard catholics who would say that ANY sin unrepented would send one to Hell. I don't accept that but I DO believe that child-abusers cannot help it, which puts them, for me, into the category of 'sick' more than evil. Putting them in prison means they will get beaten up, unable to get a job when they come out so have more times on their hands to hang around children and so on.

I am not saying that abuse is NOT a serious offence; however I object to two posts earlier in this thread which referred to them as 'shitbags' and such like. They are, like the rest of us, children of God. He loves them and we are called to do the same. The real issue is: how is that love best demonstrated?

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :

quote:
I don't accept that but I DO believe that child-abusers cannot help it,

Leo,
an abuser was impisoned in the past coupl eof weeks. A tape was played on TV of an interview with him by the police. In it he claimed that the children he abused had done it for the monwy he gave them, claiming that they wanted to do this.
There wasn't any suggestion of sorrow or repentance from him. Just that the children wanted it.
Can't help it? In that case, wouldn't they be imprisoned in state mental institutions, but how many are?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

My view is that the Seal of the Confessional is absolute and a priest has no business breaking it, no matter how heinous the crime confessed,

I believe that a priest's loyalty to God and humanity should be above that of some kind of church tradition.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

That being so, Nightlamp, which offenses do you think a priest should report to the police? Just curious, you understand.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't accept that but I DO believe that child-abusers cannot help it, which puts them, for me, into the category of 'sick' more than evil.

You're wrong. If a person gets their jollies by fucking or knocking around or starving a helpless child, they are definitely evil. The fabulous thing about me not being God is that I don't have to love or forgive them. If God chooses to toss my ass into hell over that, that's fine with me. I'll go willingly.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
That being so, Nightlamp, which offenses do you think a priest should report to the police?

I guess priests should be able to discern the difference between not buying a parking ticket and peudophilia. Do you think priests are able to make such distinctions?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

You haven't answered my question. So far, those who wish to make child sexual abuse the single sin for which the seal of the confessional can be broken contrast it with saying 'fuck' or not paying your parking tickets. What about murder? What about beating up your granny? What about that hit-and-run that you haven't been caught for yet but feel awfully guilty about? What about embezzlement? What about firebombing Asian corner shops?

[ 01. May 2006, 21:35: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I am sorry for those priests who can't spot the difference between a serious crime and a minor misdemeanor. Poor loves.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I'm waiting for Amos to give up and ask the Godwinian question about people lying to the German SS to protect and hide illegal Jews. The higher purposes of society demanded that this threat against the Fatherland be dealt with!

Yadda yadda yadda, and so on.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

More heat than light. On the issue of child sexual abuse there is always more heat than light.

And a lot of crap has been spouted here about the ministry of the sacrament by those who know nothing about it. Priests are not as daft as some of you seem to imagine them to be.

Only a sparse number of those who sit the other side of the confessional have posted here - in fact Callan is the only one I recognise, and what an excellent post he made.

For Roman Catholics the seal of the confessional is inviolable. No ifs, no buts, no special circumstances....

Well, not entirely true. If you came and confessed to me that that you had taken the Blessed Sacrament home with you and spat on it before dumping it in the rubbish, I would have to withold absolution and seek permission from the Sacred Penitentiary in Rome to give absolution - while witholding your identity. There's one example of a reserved sin which requires a higher authority than me to give absolution, even though I would be the one dealing with this matter.

The sacrament of confession is called in canonical terms the internal forum. If you come and tell me you are about to fly a plane into the Twin Towers, as someone suggested might happen, then I remove my stole and say "Right. This stops here and now. Anything you tell me is no longer privileged by the seal of the confessional and I have a duty to take what you say further". I would do the same with anyone who was confessing child abuse. No absolution in the internal forum until the matter is dealt with in the external forum.

But before you ask, no I would do absolutely nothing about what was told to me in the internal forum. Call it what you like, but that is the duty imposed upon me by the sacramental seal. Nightlamp dismisses it as "mere church tradition" - piss off. You know nothing of what it means to hear the sorry tale of peoples' sinfulness as a confessor, and what that entails.

Someone suggested there might or should be some data about how often this sin is confessed. No priest in the entire world keeps a list of sins confessed or reports to another priest what they have heard. This just is not going to happen.

But as Callan points out, the reality of the confessional is unlikely ever to hear the confession of this big sin. Hearing peoples' confessions is the most privileged part of a priest's work. It is a burden and a joy. It is intimate and it is holy ground. Supposing that some significantly evil person is going to come and play games with the sacramnet might be a good theme for a Dan Brown novel - fortunately it has no basis in reality.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Only a sparse number of those who sit the other side of the confessional have posted here - in fact Callan is the only one I recognise, and what an excellent post he made.

Amos and Nightlamp are also CofE priests.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thanks Ruth.

That information makes Nightlamp's contribution even more incomprehensible to me. I had understood that CofE priests also operate under the seal, and it was not a personal choice that they could dispense with.

It also explains why Amos has a sense of the confessional, like Callan does, that I recognise

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
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?

Faith means being really sure, not because you are blind to the possibility that you could be wrong, but because you trust that you are not. Once you start "if and but"-ing that trust, it may remain a strongly held opinion, but it is not faith anymore.

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The fabulous thing about me not being God is that I don't have to love or forgive them.

I think this is a quite important point for the discussion with non-believers, actually. Everybody understands from justice and common sense, that somebody may not wish or indeed be able to love and forgive somebody else. Indeed, in the case of a child abuser we can easily believe that nobody wishes to love and forgive that person. But, it is also comprehensible to most that good ethics and psychology can be stretched so far as to say that everybody should be able to find love and forgiveness if they are truly sorry. So there's a dilemma: everybody should get that chance, but nobody wants to provide it. We say then that God provides the chance and that the priests minister it. Even if someone doesn't believe in God, I think he may come to the conclusion that "playing pretend" is actually good here to break that moral dilemma.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Amos and Nightlamp are also CofE priests.

I knew Amos was ordained but I had not realised that Nightlamp was.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Thanks Ruth.

That information makes Nightlamp's contribution even more incomprehensible to me. I had understood that CofE priests also operate under the seal, and it was not a personal choice that they could dispense with.

They are, but a large number of Anglican priests do not hear confessions. There does seem to be a split on this thread between those from a tradition where confession is common and those from other traditions.

Here's a question for those arguing that the seal should be violable for child abuse. What if Harold Shipman had gone to confession before he was arrested, should the seal also not apply there?

And thank you TT, for saying what you would do if the situation were to arise. Actually, I wonder if the priests most likely to hear confessions of this nature are those working as prison chaplains.

Dealing with those who abuse children is a thorny one for Christians because we believe that people can change (or be changed), but experience shows that abusers have a high re-offending rate.

Carys

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

More than 15 years ago someone told me a confidence which I broke to save someone else from being badly harmed. I would have no qualms about doing the same again no matter what role I am fulfilling.

Someone dying or revealing a confidence? For me there is no question.

Posted by LatePaul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
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?
Faith means being really sure, not because you are blind to the possibility that you could be wrong, but because you trust that you are not. Once you start "if and but"-ing that trust, it may remain a strongly held opinion, but it is not faith anymore.

That sounds like you're saying faith should be unquestioning. But the point where a good person is led to do something bad (not report a crime) is exactly the point where I think faith should be questioned.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It has been. Repeatedly. Over centuries and centuries.

And what we have as a result of that questioning is the seal of the confessional.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Which I think is wrong. I'm sorry, I do. I know God sees the big picture and really isn't all that motivated to intervene in (or much care about, for that matter) the physical suffering of his creation, but I cannot and will not believe that he actively sanctions aiding and abetting those who are harming other people.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Someone dying or revealing a confidence?

So are we talking

A) "Oh by the way, Vicar - and this is strictly confidential - I'm planning on killing Mum next Tuesday."

or

B) "Father, I have sinned. I killed my mother last Tuesday and her body's in the garden shed."

Surely people don't often confess crimes to a priest in advance, I wouldn't think.

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

G'day Sine Nomine

quote:
Surely people don't often confess crimes to a priest in advance, I wouldn't think.

They might say I am having thoughts of doing so and so... of any kind of nature.

Blessings craig b

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Didn't know you were a priest who hears sacramental confessions, crackb.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Erin, I agree with you entirely. But I do not think preserving the seal of the confessional is aiding and abetting.

I can assure you, the confessional would not be a nice place to be if someone was confessing such a crime. As I enunciated above, the priest (or certainly this one) would not just be complicit and understanding and absolving of the penitent if they were not prepared to take full responsibility for their actions. There are sometimes some other issues where people try to get away with things in the confessional and expect one to excuse them - the answer is always no: this is not about excusing but about forgiving. The confessional is not a fluffy warm fuzzy hugs kind of place. It is a place of tears. It is the seat of God's mercy, but mercy is founded on justice. Absolution is not about saying "it doesn't matter" - it's about saying it does matter!

An integral part of confession is penitence and penance. Penitence is facing up to the reality of what you have done. Penance is doing something to make up for it. Forgiveness is not about excusing what has done, but about how to move beyond it once you have acknowledged it. Even for those guilty of child abuse there must be the possibility of restitutive justice, not just punitive justice. Even though we are all revolted to the core by their abuse.

If a child abuser were in my confessional and did not exhibit the marks of repentance and a willingness to do penance, there is no way they would walk out of there having received absolution. I would insist that we moved from the internal to the external forum. I am utterly sure they would not be in the confessional in the first place if they were not willing to co-operate with the ministry of the sacrament - which does not mean they will do as they are asked, just that they are some way towards recognising their guilt.

If the person was in prison already and paying for their crime, then a different issue is involved, which is rehabilitation. Again, that is not excusing and pretending it did not happen: it is assuming responsibility for their actions and moving on from there.

If that is not possible, then we are really back to the death penalty, and have simply come to the modern crime which is too heinous for us to allow that person to live, which other crimes have been regarded as in the past. Is that really what we are saying?

The seal of the confessional ensures that the penitent always takes responsibility for their own actions - they are not going to be exposed by someone else, no matter what the sin. That is a very demanding concept. And believe me, it is a very demanding concept on the one who has to preserve the seal as well - do not for a minute think I would not desire with all my being to expose a perpetrator of these crimes! I am not just sitting lightly riding on a notional rule book which says "don't tell".

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

I don't understand. I don't understand how a priest can hear such things and not act. Setting aside the punishment aspect, if you know someone is hurting a child, how can you not act immediately to stop it? I don't understand that at all. It is truly beyond my comprehension.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I don't understand. I don't understand how a priest can hear such things and not act. Setting aside the punishment aspect, if you know someone is hurting a child, how can you not act immediately to stop it? I don't understand that at all. It is truly beyond my comprehension.

The first time I met with my confessor, she warned me that if child abuse were involved (I forget exactly how she phrased it, but it clearly included physical harm not limited to sexual abuse) she would be compelled to go to the authorities. That way, I suppose, if you've behaved in a criminal manner with a child, you've been forewarned.

[ 02. May 2006, 03:20: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Perhaps a more common scenario would be for a priest to hear a confession from the VICTIM which made it clear that abuse was occurring. That would certainly put him in a thorny spot as far as reporting, particularly if the victim specifically begged him not to, and chose the confessional to try to ensure it. I'm no priest, but I've had several young people tell me of abuse and then beg me not to report it, usually because they don't want to wind up in foster care.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[...] I am utterly sure they would not be in the confessional in the first place if they were not willing to co-operate with the ministry of the sacrament - which does not mean they will do as they are asked, just that they are some way towards recognising their guilt...

I have no supporting evidence but it seems unlikely that someone who understood the meaning of the confessional and understood the circumstances, would not be ready to accept the full consequences of secular justice. Why would a child abuser follow this route, knowing there would be no absolution if they weren't ready to accept the full punishment? The horrible guilt would only be intensified by revealing the crime and not accepting full responsibility and punishment.

Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :

Might this then not be just a big red herring? Does anyone have any evidence of child molester not being caught - or going on to offend further - because a sacramental confession to the effect was kept confidential?

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
I don't understand. I don't understand how a priest can hear such things and not act. Setting aside the punishment aspect, if you know someone is hurting a child, how can you not act immediately to stop it? I don't understand that at all. It is truly beyond my comprehension.

That's the same as me. I know that it'd be a hell of a choice for a priest, under current circumstances, to decide to break the seal, but I still think it would be worth it.

I find myself wondering what view God might take on priests who stood by and watched as children had their lives screwed up. I can't help but think he'd be more chuffed with someone who spoke out and said that this was wrong, and that it should be stopped, than someone who let it happen for fear of being excommunicated.

Excommunication isn't from God, it's from the church. If you're excommunicated, it doesn't mean you can never be christian again. It means that you can't go back to catholocism. That sort of people-enforced dicipline worries me a lot. I don't think that God would be up for tossing people out of christianity.

Again, that's me not being roman catholic and almost certainly not fully comprehending the seriousness of excommunication, but I still think that it'd be better to know you stopped children being abused than to know that you've still got a job in a church which forces you to shut up about it.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

It is interesting that people here think they would rather people die than someone reveal a confidence. A most odd attitude.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:
I don't understand. I don't understand how a priest can hear such things and not act. Setting aside the punishment aspect, if you know someone is hurting a child, how can you not act immediately to stop it? I don't understand that at all. It is truly beyond my comprehension.
That's the same as me. I know that it'd be a hell of a choice for a priest, under current circumstances, to decide to break the seal, but I still think it would be worth it.

I think the problem is that, if you only consider a single incident, it probably would be worth it - but if you accept it as a general principle that the seal can be broken, then the sort of child molester who wasn't willing to give themselves up just wouldn't confess, so you wouldn't actually prevent any abuse. You would, on the other hand, end up with that sort of bogeyman Catholic priest who has the power of life and death over his congregation because he knows all their sins and can blackmail them for it.

[ 02. May 2006, 08:05: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, in the case of a child abuser we can easily believe that nobody wishes to love and forgive that person.

On the contrary. I think that especially for such cases it must be a joy to forgive and a responsibility to love. If a person who does these things understands his error and changes his ways then this is a joyful occasion on its own. A soul that has been wandering in the deepest parts of hell has turned back to God. Someone wrecked from sin and oppresed by the opponent has responded to Christ's call.

What if you were in their place? Wouldn't you need to hear that God's forgiveness is real? That evil does not conquer over good?

Sure, a lot of things need to be done afterwards. But this does not diminish the fact that someone who was spiritually dead has risen. After all, isn't this why God sustained him in life after all, even after committing these crimes?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
I find myself wondering what view God might take on priests who stood by and watched as children had their lives screwed up.

While God intervened and strucked the person that did this down?

Posted by ed the big crazy bear (# 11330) on :

What good is a man's word if it is conditional? It hardly ceases to be a promise at all...
My suggestion would be is to assure the confessor, before you start that you cannot keep anything illegal confidential. This is what my Dad does as a Prison Chaplain, it would endanger the lives of others if he didn't. The burden is then on the confessor wether to make his actions public or not. But he can be assured that anything within the law would be confidential.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
I find myself wondering what view God might take on priests who stood by and watched as children had their lives screwed up.
While God intervened and strucked the person that did this down?

Except in 99.9999% of the cases, God doesn't. It might be a better world if God did so all the time; it might be a far worse one; I don't know. It would definitely be a different world.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ed the big crazy bear:
My suggestion would be is to assure the confessor, before you start that you cannot keep anything illegal confidential.

Sex between members of the same gender was illegal a few years ago. So did adultery and fornication. If these things become again illegal one day, should priests turn homosexuals over to the police? Should priests turn unmarried people that have sex over to the police? Should priests turn adulterers over to the police?

I think that this would make the Church part of this world, a secular institution, instead of the divine-human organism that She (should be) is.

You cannot judge the Church by the standards of e.g. the law of Britain. What about the laws in China? Or other parts of the world? And why use modern laws as a standard? Do you assume that they won't change? What if they change?

The judgement of the Dreadful Judge is much more important than serving time in prison. Besides, I think that the people that ask from the Church to change the sacrament of confession, ignore the fact that a lot of things must be done AFTER confession so that the person can be "rehabilitated" in the Church. Confession is not the end. There is a road ahead that leads to full communion with the body of Christ, and this road is not easy to walk.

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :

As Triple Tiara points out, the people who get most het up about these are by and large those who have never and will never hear a sacramental confession. And as TT also said, hearing confessions is one of the most rewarding parts of a priest's ministry.

Thos who get so het up must learn to recognise that there is a great deal of flexibility in the way that confessions are made and the way in which the priest hears them. For example, one has to judge whether or not the person making the confession is properly contrite (the Sydney Diocese archetype of confession of 'Slept with a prostitute, merrily went along to Farm St to confess to cynical priest who then has fun telling his brother clergy all about the details, got three Hail Mary's and went out to lunch', being a little unhelpful to say the least). One has to see whether the person is simply making things up for fun (which happens). And, for things like Child Abuse or murder or rape there is always the witholding of absolution and the insistence of the penitent giving up himself to the authorities before absolution is given or, as TT again points out, the breaking off of the formal confession in order to absolve the priest of secrecy. A true pentient in such a case would not mind.

The hearing of confessions is a much more subtle art than the films have everybody believe.

But what is not up for discussion is the Seal of the Confessional. That is inviolate (except in the case that by not revealing the confession the priest himself might be convicted of a crime and put to death), inviolate, inviolate. Even in the most serious of cases (and who is to decide what is or is not truly serious).

If I knew who Nightlamp was I would never tell him anything even vaguely confidential about myself or anybody else either under the Seal or outside. How on earth can I trust him (or any other priest who admits to breaking confidences, big or small) to keep anything quiet?

Cosmo

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:

If I knew who Nightlamp was I would never tell him anything even vaguely confidential about myself or anybody else either under the Seal or outside. How on earth can I trust him (or any other priest who admits to breaking confidences, big or small) to keep anything quiet?

Cosmo

Exactly what I was thinking. I know it's a 'confidence' but I tend to think of someone's sacramental confession as something more than that - 'a confidence' puts it on the same level as Grandma's surprise party for her 90th birthday.

Thurible

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I don't understand. I don't understand how a priest can hear such things and not act. Setting aside the punishment aspect, if you know someone is hurting a child, how can you not act immediately to stop it? I don't understand that at all. It is truly beyond my comprehension.

I don't either, Erin. I have never been presented with the situation so I have never had to deal with it. I really do not know how I would react - that's something else entirely.

Zorro, you seem to think everything a Catholic does is out of fear or the threat of excommunication. I do not even think about that as an issue - it's not what motivates me to preserve the seal at all. Rather, I would preserve the seal come what may because it is holy ground - it's the place where sin, evil and the devil are defeated.

There is a big difference between a conversation presuming a confidence and the sacrament of confession. There is none of the same constraint on a confidential conversation. But I really do shudder at the thought that clergy would assume it is their responsibility to be handing those who come to see them over to the police on any matter whatsoever.

Thank you Cosmo for a very useful post. Your post restored my respect for and confidence in the Anglican clergy!

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

There is a big difference between a conversation presuming a confidence and the sacrament of confession.

Only in your mind and church tradition not in reality.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

There is a big difference between a conversation presuming a confidence and the sacrament of confession.
Only in your mind and church tradition not in reality.

God has spoken, people. God has spoken.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:

How on earth can I trust him (or any other priest who admits to breaking confidences, big or small) to keep anything quiet?

Sometimes (probably only rarely) confidences have to be broken for the greater good.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

There is a big difference between a conversation presuming a confidence and the sacrament of confession.
Only in your mind and church tradition not in reality.

Actually the very fact you used the phrase "church tradition" implies it's a lot of people's reality over a lot of years.

Even if it's not your reality.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What if you were in their place?

The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I never would be. And it has nothing to do with "but for the grace of God..." etc., because it has nothing to do with God's grace and everything to do with possessing the minimum basic requirements of a human being.

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
But what is not up for discussion is the Seal of the Confessional. That is inviolate (except in the case that by not revealing the confession the priest himself might be convicted of a crime and put to death), inviolate, inviolate.

Excuse me? A priest can reveal a confession if his life is in danger, but not if it's some worthless little brat? Are you fucking serious?

Posted by LatePaul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But I really do shudder at the thought that clergy would assume it is their responsibility to be handing those who come to see them over to the police on any matter whatsoever.

Why? I'd think it would be the responsibility of any good citizen to pass on information which may prevent a serious crime to the relevant authorities. I'd certainly hope that if a priest came across such information outside the confessional that he'd act accordingly.

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
But what is not up for discussion is the Seal of the Confessional. That is inviolate (except in the case that by not revealing the confession the priest himself might be convicted of a crime and put to death), inviolate, inviolate.
Excuse me? A priest can reveal a confession if his life is in danger, but not if it's some worthless little brat? Are you fucking serious?

It's not so much me being serious as the Canon Law of the Church of England. The 1603 Canons had a section concerning confession which has deliberately never been repealed and, as such, is still legally binding on the ordained clergy. That section is this:

"Provided always that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not in any way bind the said minister by this our constitution, but we do straightly charge and admonish him that he do not at any time reveal and make know to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same) under pain of irregularity."

In other words, the Canon Law of the Church of England (my 1983 Canon Law of Rome is downstairs but I daresay it says much the same thing) states that if a priest hears a confession in which any crime or offence is confessed then he not permitted to reveal it.

That's why I say again and stress that the hearing of confessions is a delicate process. It should not be regarded as a simple conveyorbelt mechanism meaning every priest in Englnd is walking around with the confession of hundreds of child abusers inside him and unable to do anything about it.

By the way, the Diocese of London website makes it clear that Nightlamp's view that confidences are there to be broken lays him open to charges under the Clergy Discipline for Conduct Unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders.

Cosmo

[ 02. May 2006, 11:51: Message edited by: Cosmo ]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
By the way, the Diocese of London website makes it clear that Nightlamp's view that confidences are there to be broken lays him open to charges under the Clergy Discipline for Conduct Unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders.

RuthW may have said I was a Priest but that doesn't make me one so I don't feel particularly bound by CofE Clergy discipline.

Anyway from the same web site it says

quote:
In the case of a request for a reference for someone about whom a minister has information concerning accusations of child abuse, or who is about to be appointed to, or is actually in, a post which gives access to children, bearing in mind Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights disclosure should only be made if there is a 'pressing need', taking into account such matters as

the minister's own view as to the truth of what is alleged,
the interest of the third party in obtaining the information (much greater if, for example, X is seeking employment in a children's hostel, than if he or she is seeking to work in an old people's home), and
the degree of risk likely to arise if the disclosure is not made, which will involve consideration of such matters as the length of time that has elapsed since the behaviour the minister is aware of took place, the age of the children to which X will have access, and which of the above categories applies

Which would suggest of all crimes abuse of children should be given to people in authority.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

So the arguments so far are that child abuse is one of the most horrible things there is, therefore it’s worth breaking the ‘seal’ of confession. Versus the idea that the seal of confession is inviolable and any exception renders the whole idea suspect and breaks the original vow of confidentiality.

This debate reflects a number of underlying theological assumptions:

The high value associated with confession, confidentiality and priesthood.
The high level of moral outrage associated with child abuse compared to other ‘sins’ such as selling state secrets.

While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse. Wouldn’t ones position on child abuse be separate to one’s position on the confidentiality of confession?

The other interesting question brought up by this thread is what is the eternal (or ‘spiritual’ ) significance of keeping or breaking confidentiality in relation to child abuse?

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:

While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.

If someone killed someone and killed them and third party saw it did nothing at all and the person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?

If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it and did nothing at all and didn't help the police and the person then killed someone else Would the third party be in the wrong?

If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

If you heard a confession that a fellow Priest was molesting a young boy named Jimmy from your parish and you know Jimmy and his family...how on earth could you face that child or his family knowing that there was abuse? His parent's are unaware, this child is being destroyed and you say, "good moring, nice to see you in church today?" His parents mention how nice it is that the priest in question is taking some kids fishing (story from the Boston abuse scandal) and you say..."have a nice time?"

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:

If I knew who Nightlamp was I would never tell him anything even vaguely confidential about myself or anybody else either under the Seal or outside. How on earth can I trust him (or any other priest who admits to breaking confidences, big or small) to keep anything quiet?

Cosmo
Exactly what I was thinking. I know it's a 'confidence' but I tend to think of someone's sacramental confession as something more than that - 'a confidence' puts it on the same level as Grandma's surprise party for her 90th birthday.

Thurible

Well, out of all of you so far the only one I'd consider having as my priest is Nightlamp (whether he actually turns out to be one or not) - because I could not, in any good conscience, entrust my spiritual development to someone who, given the choice of maintaining their good standing within church heirarchy or stopping the rape or brutality of an innocent child, felt their loyalty lay with the former.

Different perspectives on what we're looking for out of a priest, I guess.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Thank you Cosmo for a very useful post. Your post restored my respect for and confidence in the Anglican clergy!

Hey! What about me? What's he got that I haven't got?

[Paranoid]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Amos, that opens up all sorts of possibilities for an answer [Big Grin]

But it was just that Cosmo had posted after I had already acknolwedged you here after being told by RuthW you were of the ordained variety.

You see, I do care - sometimes [Two face]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

BTW, in Roman Catholic law a priest is not dispensed from keeping the seal if his life is in danger. St John Nepomucen, the "martyr of the confessional" is an example of one who refused to violate the seal. All over eastern Europe his statue abounds, with a finger to his lips to show he kept silence rather than save his life.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What if you were in their place?
The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I never would be.

Why? Aren't they people like you? Or do you think they are not people like you, but belong to a different category?

I'm not saying that you will actually do such crimes. But what if you were in their place, having the upbringing they had, experiencing the things they experienced, being alienated from God to the degree they were?

Do you really think that you are not prone to such sins?

I think that you remind me of Peter. "I will never deny you, Master". I -and excuse me for speaking frankly- find it perverse to believe that someone who repents and understands the poverty of his life is not worthy of our love and care and mercy.

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
Well, out of all of you so far the only one I'd consider having as my priest is Nightlamp (whether he actually turns out to be one or not) - because I could not, in any good conscience, entrust my spiritual development to someone who, given the choice of maintaining their good standing within church heirarchy or stopping the rape or brutality of an innocent child, felt their loyalty lay with the former.

First, where has anybody here said that? The seal of the confessional has nothing to do with keeping in with the heirarchy and everything to do with respecting the privacy and trust of the penitent. Do you seriously think that TT or me would prefer to keep in with our respective bishops rather than try to prevent the rape of a child? That's a pretty serious accusation.

Second, you are yet another example of somebody who will never hear a sacramental confession but thinks they know exactly how it works and what happens in every case. Read what TT and I have written. It is not a conveyor belt process.

Third, you don't have a choice as to whether or not I or anybody else is 'your' priest. That's called Donatism and is one of the oldest heresies. I am a priest of God. You can choose not to go to my church if you like but you can't choose if I am or am not a priest for you.

Cosmo

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
In other words, the Canon Law of the Church of England (my 1983 Canon Law of Rome is downstairs but I daresay it says much the same thing) states that if a priest hears a confession in which any crime or offence is confessed then he not permitted to reveal it.

Rather, the RC Canon Law from 1983 says in Canon 938.1: "The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion." Of course, I wouldn't necessarily bet that all RC priests will die rather than break the seal (and be excommunicated, Can. 1388). But your escape clause is as far as I can see not in Roman law...

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
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.

Apology accepted and appreciated.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.

Yeah, that's more or less my point. I don't in the least mind someone else holding a different opinion about confidentiality to me (I mean, by definition, I think different opinions to mine are wrong, but I don't get annoyed about it) but it is completely out of order for someone to suppose that because I disagree with them I somehow condone child abuse. I don't. It's evil.

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?

How about - if there was a clinical program whereby people tempted to murder could talk about it in confidence with a view to working through their issues and turning away from violence, and some pompous, unfeeling official decided she could give herself a big, self-satisfied pat on the back at her ‘zero-tolerence' attitude if she put a stop to the offer of confidentiality? And someone who would have sought help under the old rules then didn't, and went on to kill?

Anyone can play this game, and it would be just as unfair for me to criticise your position on the basis that you are putting your conscience above genuine attempts to help abusers to stop abusing as it is for you to suggest that confidentiality equals complicity. It's a silly rhetorical trick that gets in the way of the real issue.

I'm not asking you to agree with me about when it is right or wrong to keep a confidence, just to accept that people would think confessions are inviolate think that because they believe that the secrecy of the confessional is effective in avoiding sin. And in this particular case, we believe that some children will be abused less often if some abusers have access to sacramental confession, than if they do not. You might think we are wrong about that, but if you dare to suggest that we think child abuse is anything other than an evil that absolutely must be stopped, then you are either a fool or a liar.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The film Priest, written by Jimmy McGovern and released in 1995 dealt with this dilemma in a very intelligent way.

The film had many detractors, but I found it a superb depiction of so many tensions that inhere in the life and ministry of priests.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

Ricardus:

quote:
then the sort of child molester who wasn't willing to give themselves up just wouldn't confess

Doesn't that go back to my original point that going to confession to someone who can't do anything about it is really just an empty gesture?

Triple Tiara

quote:
Zorro, you seem to think everything a Catholic does is out of fear or the threat of excommunication

I don't, and I can only apologise if you think that I do, what I was saying was that a large part of a priest not breaking the seal (other than the seal's unbreakability) is the fear of excommunication. I think that it's wrong to have such practices in place which prevent child abuse being reported.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thanks for your clarification Zorro. I will simply restate that I keep the seal not because I am afraid of excommunication, but I believe it is a sacred trust to which I feel bound. I think almost all priests would say the same. The bit about excommunication is simply there as a censure should a violation happen. I assure you, it is very low down in my reasons for preserving the seal. It is often mentioned as an assurance to those making their confessions. But it is not the great motivating factor for priests in preserving the seal.

I hope that clarifies it a bit.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
RuthW may have said I was a Priest but that doesn't make me one

I was under the impression that you were, but if I'm wrong it certainly isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for any confusion I've created.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:
Originally posted by ed the big crazy bear:
My suggestion would be is to assure the confessor, before you start that you cannot keep anything illegal confidential.
Sex between members of the same gender was illegal a few years ago. So did adultery and fornication. If these things become again illegal one day, should priests turn homosexuals over to the police? Should priests turn unmarried people that have sex over to the police? Should priests turn adulterers over to the police?

At the risk of starting a tangent, the confessional (in anglo-catholic churches) was often a place of help and assurance to homosexuals when their behaviour was illegal - somebody has written a book on it but I cannot currently get to my shelves because I have builders turning my home inside out. The gist of it was that the seal of the confessional enabled many to explore their spirituality and their sexuality e.g. perhaps not to feel guilty about a stable relationship but avoid promiscuity (the former often led to the latter).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Ricardus:

quote:
then the sort of child molester who wasn't willing to give themselves up just wouldn't confess
Doesn't that go back to my original point that going to confession to someone who can't do anything about it is really just an empty gesture?

Yes - but we seem to be drawing opposite conclusions from it ...

[ 02. May 2006, 20:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :

Cosmo it's all very nice sounding stuff but at the end day of the day if someone confesses to you* that they are molesting my child and you do not do everything you can lay your hands on to stop that from occuring one moment longer, then you are simply not my priest in the sense that I believe your actions render your priesthood null and void in any true sense of the word. I don't give a toss what your organisation chart or piece of paper tells me you are. I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on church organisation though, but that's okay. The kingdom's big enough.

*you not being literally "you, cosmo" but "you" hypothetically.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[Devil's advocate, as it were]

But if the penitent's unsupported word was not enough to convict, and all that happened was that the abuser moved elsewhere - or said the priest was making a malicious accusation cos it was the priest what done it / they'd being having an affair and he was afraid of it coming out >insert random slander here<

Versus

Priest's counselling and withholding of absolution causes abuser to actually confront their denial and they then turn themselves in ?

Because we can't actually know what would happen. But it would be difficult to get a conviction on just a confession, in the same way that someone can't sectioned because they told the Samaritan's they were suicidal - unless they start repeating that account to other people.

[/Devil's advocate, as it were]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

But if the penitent's unsupported word was not enough to convict, and all that happened was that the abuser moved elsewhere - or said the priest was making a malicious accusation cos it was the priest what done it

Naturally it isn't enough to convict but it might be enough for someone to investigate the accusation.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you really think that you are not prone to such sins?

Do I really think that I am not prone to fucking or beating children? Yeah, I really think that. Anyone who doesn't think that should go ahead and remove him/herself from the human race at the next available opportunity.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
One has to be careful in assuming that a child who is exhibiting hypersexual behavior is necessarily being abused. Hypersexual behavior is a common symptom of early-onset bipolar disorder. It is an extremely distressing symptom of an extremely serious psychiatric disorder.

If the child is exhibiting hypersexual behavior, the parents are generally very much aware that, in seeking help for their child, they are risking being accused of abuse, with all that entails. It's a terrible position for a parent to be in.

Sorry. I had no idea that was the case. Not a mistake I shall be making again.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

I apologize for having a little trouble keeping up, but as we all know there's been a lot of excitement around here recently. I do however have a couple of questions:

1) Has it been decided yet which sins are under the seal of the confessional and which aren't, or is it just everybody's own opinion?

2) Has Nightlamp ever heard a confession, sacramentally speaking, or does he just occasionally hear things "in confidence" (Well, at least one party thinks they're "in confidence".)

Thank-you.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

hehehehe, exactly

P

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Has Nightlamp ever heard a confession, sacramentally speaking,

Now doing that would probably get me into trouble unless ex-caretakers of churches have suddenly got authority I ain't heard of yet. Mind you it might be a new tradition and who says (ex)-caretakers can't hear confession?

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Leo, there's sinning, then there's child abuse.

I swore at someone the other day, that's a sin.

Someone's been sexually assaulting kids for the last 20 years, which is worse?

...Anyone who harms children in this way should be immediately reported to the authorities, and put away for a long, long time.....Also, regarding the bit you mentioned about the Gospel telling us that people can always repent, I found this in the bible

quote:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Now I know it doesn't mention child abuse outright, but it's certainly clear that leading children astray is a serious offence.
There are those diehard catholics who would say that ANY sin unrepented would send one to Hell. I don't accept that but I DO believe that child-abusers cannot help it, which puts them, for me, into the category of 'sick' more than evil. Putting them in prison means they will get beaten up, unable to get a job when they come out so have more times on their hands to hang around children and so on.

I am not saying that abuse is NOT a serious offence; however I object to two posts earlier in this thread which referred to them as 'shitbags' and such like. They are, like the rest of us, children of God. He loves them and we are called to do the same. The real issue is: how is that love best demonstrated?

I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.

Spare me this child of God crap. If you're heart really bleeds for paedophiles, go pontificate to them.

While I appreciate TT's post about how he/she would deal with a confession of abuse, I am getting pretty tired of reading from Cosmo and TT how the rest of us just don't get how hard this is because we have never heard a confession as a priest before. IngoB alluded to the fact that I am an abuse survivor. He is correct. I and thousands of other abuse survivors would much rather be priests hearing nasty confessions than have abuse in our pasts. Every day and twice on Sunday.

Andreas - I can't be bothered to say anything about your posts than that you are an insensitive, brainless moron who really should have been deprived of the ability to type so you couldn't subject us all to your sanctimonious drivel.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

If you're a priest who knows one of my children is being targetted for abuse, but remain silent due to the sanctity of the confessional, and the abuse does take place, God save your soul, because I will do my best to kill you.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Awkwardly, if I promise to do something, such as not repeat something, I will in fact try to do that regardless of the consequences. It's one of the reasons I don't promise things very often.

However, should a situation arise such that I've promised not to reveal something, and that something turned out to be a confession of something like child abuse, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find some technicality. For example, I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't have promised not to cripple the confessor, and sterilize them with a red hot butter knife. Which might be just too damn bad.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
However, should a situation arise such that I've promised not to reveal something, and that something turned out to be a confession of something like child abuse, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find some technicality. For example, I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't have promised not to cripple the confessor, and sterilize them with a red hot butter knife. Which might be just too damn bad.

Cute plan. Whether your incompetent attempts at doing physical damage will result in more than hilarity, who knows? But when the child abuser calls the cops on you, you can't reveal your reason for the assault - hence you end up being the new Canadian toy boy in prison. Which might be just too damn bad?

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

What's the problem Ingo? Getting tired of the tedious displays of erudition in Purg? No longer satisfied with the diminishing ego boost from the same old crowd of sycophants? Looking to expand your intellectual prowess into more Hellish domains?

Surely, you have something more useful to do? Like polish a mirror or change a diaper? Better, yet... go work on your lame-ass astrology thread.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:

While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.
If someone killed someone and killed them and third party saw it did nothing at all and the person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?

If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it and did nothing at all and didn't help the police and the person then killed someone else Would the third party be in the wrong?

If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?

Fair line of arguing, I admit you can be a bystander and have a certain amount of complicity in a situation.

However your example doesn’t take into account three questions or assumptions about this topic.

You seem to imply child abuse is as bad or worse then ‘killing.’
Secondly what degree of child abuse is worthy of breaking the confession?
Thirdly is ‘confession’ something special, something inviolate or is it just a plain every day confidence that can be broken in certain contexts?

Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse. It would be like saying those who think the confession should be broken are anti-Catholic!

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.

God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it? [Roll Eyes]

A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.

Spare me this child of God crap.

If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.

I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.

Spare me this child of God crap.
If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.

Funny thing, leo - if I read your posts out loud, I start channeling Micky Mouse, and my voice sounds all high pitched, squeaky and extremely irritating. Does any of that resonate?

quote:
I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!

You've done well ignoring the thrust of my disagreement with you, which was about your idiotic statement that paedophiles cannot help themselves. My point is, if they can't help themselves than the only thing we can do with them is kill them. Or restrain them for the term of thier natural lives, I suppose. Which is a waste of oxygen, and other resources.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.
God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it?
A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.

Fair criticism. If it turns out only to be a strawman then I'm happy.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
What's the problem Ingo?

Gort, in the not too distant past you were slowly getting to me with your personal vendetta. Then, luckily, I stumbled on a picture of you in an All Saints shipmeet thread. I laughed out loud at myself and have not been bothered by any of it since. Most people get a bit mulish and atrabilious with old age, and if constantly yapping at me is one of the few remaining pleasures in your rapidly diminishing life, so be it.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.
God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it?
A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.

‘Pro-child abuse'? No, no one has said that. What has been strongly implied (mostly by you, as it happens) is that your opponents are untroubled by, or accepting of, abuse. Which is not quite as insulting or absurd as suggesting that they are positively in favour of it, but it is still a fairly nasty thing to imply.

Example:

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Its sad that you find this [limiting confessional secrecy] disturbing. Some of us find sexual abuse of children disturbing.

which carries the very strong inference that your correspondent does NOT appear to find child abuse disturbing.

Similarly your comment (to me) that:

quote:
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal.

If I, apparently, do not find child abuse ‘inexcuseable', then presumably you mean to suggest that I am willing to excuse it.

A number of Nightlamp's comments appear to me to suggest a similar attitude (though not quite as strongly as yours):

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp...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 believe that a priest's loyalty to God and humanity should be above that of some kind of church tradition.

suggest that keeping the seal of the confessional is disloyalty to God and humanity, and his rhetorical questions in answer to Luke's post in the form:

quote:
If someone killed someone [various circumstances] Would the third party be in the wrong?

suggest to me an implied answer of "Yes" to Luke's proposition that "those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse".

There are plenty of posts on this thread (on both sides) which take no such cheap shots at people of contrary opinions. I haven't argued with those.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

We all agree that sins like that alienate the sinner from God even further than other sins. But can't someone repent and change his or her way of life?

I have been taught to believe that when we sin we are not in communion with light. Therefore, I find quite shocking things like what Luther wrote to the effect that even if one commits murder or rape many times a day his/her faith is enough to save him/her. However, I have also been taught that there is one kind of humantity, that there are no sub-humans. This means that if something (ontologically speaking) is possible for someone else, it is possible for me as well.

I see myself in others, because I could have been them. I am able to "pray for those that oppress me and bless those that curse me" because I understand how sad their life is; being away from God is sad in itself.

This makes it easier for me to forgive (not easy, but easier). After all, the word "forgive" in Greek means to put myself in the same place with him whom I forgive.

I have also been taught that all good things are gifts from above. Isn't repentance a good thing? I think that it is something God gives. Who am I to deny something that God gives?

This does not mean that when one repents things are all right. I have been taught that there is a hard way we are to walk in order to fight the passions and the sins of this world. In practical terms, this means that priests involved in sexual immorality are to be deposed and spend their life in a monastery repenting, and lay people must get excommunicated for years and pray for God's forgiveness and grace. Perhaps jail is a step in the right direction. I am not arguing against jail.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.

Spare me this child of God crap.
If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.
Funny thing, leo - if I read your posts out loud, I start channeling Micky Mouse, and my voice sounds all high pitched, squeaky and extremely irritating. Does any of that resonate?

quote:
I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!
You've done well ignoring the thrust of my disagreement with you, which was about your idiotic statement that paedophiles cannot help themselves. My point is, if they can't help themselves than the only thing we can do with them is kill them. Or restrain them for the term of thier natural lives, I suppose. Which is a waste of oxygen, and other resources.

When I said they 'can't help themselves' I meant that the propensity seems incurable - so it's not nthat can't stop doing it but that they can't stop WANTING to do it.

BTW Someone above said that child abuse was worse than murder. I don't quite agree with that but I can see that many of those who have been abused may live very stunted lives - so imposing the suffering of a lifetime on to someone is greater pain than killing someone.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

Dark Knight is what Eliab said true?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I have been taught to believe that when we sin we are not in communion with light. Therefore, I find quite shocking things like what Luther wrote to the effect that even if one commits murder or rape many times a day his/her faith is enough to save him/her.

Why is it shocking?

I think what this is describing is the condition in which one has faith in Christ and sincerely tries to follow his commandments, yet fails. I admit to some experience with such a state of being although my acts of murder and rape have been nonexistent. But then I haven't ever felt tempted to murder or rape.

This is different from someone who acknowledges a belief in Christ as Lord but then goes on to live a life in which this belief makes no difference whatsoever. To my mind this is either dead faith a la St James or no faith at all.

I think you could argue that a strong faith will result in repentance and contrition and therefore by God's mercy a quick return to a state of grace even for one who commits grave sins frequently, whereas a less blatant sinner who lacks faith will not go down this path.

[fixed typo]

[ 03. May 2006, 11:36: Message edited by: GreyFace ]

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

andreas1984

quote:
We all agree that sins like that alienate the sinner from God even further than other sins. But can't someone repent and change his or her way of life?

I'm sure it is, but I still think that "confessing" to someone you know can't do anything is really just trying to soften your conscience. If you really were repentent, surely you'd be up for going to the police and being punished?

To say that it's all right for someone who has ruined the lives of children to go and "confess," but still not want to accept the consequences of what they did is at best an empty-gesture.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Bloody hell, Zorro - how many more times does some poor long-suffering bastard have to attempt to punch this one home?: if there were no sign of accepting responsibility for the crime there would be no absolution. I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.

Once more for the insufferably stupid: no repentance and taking responsibilty, no absolution. Got it now?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.

Just to play (ahem) devil's advocate, what about the molester going to a monastery for life?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I don't know how this plays out in the case of child abuse, but I do know how it works in the case of spouse abuse. A priest can intervene effectively without breaking the seal of the confessional, by what he requires of the person making the confession. This is true whether he learns of the abuse from the abuser or from the person being abused.

As others here have said, maintaining the seal of the confessional is not at all the same as dismissing the sin as inconsequential. Not reporting the sin to the police is not the same as doing nothing about it.

People being abused often feel guilty about some of the abuse, or their reactions to it, and they are unwilling to tell anyone about the abuse or their feelings about it. The fact that the confessional is sealed gives them a safe place to tell someone what is going on, perhaps the only truly safe place they have. If the victim of abuse thought there was the faintest chance that the priest would intervene openly, it's unlikely that the victim would speak of the abuse to the priest at all.

Lifting the seal might seem like "the right thing to do," but I think the consequences would be far less beneficial than some people imagine.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

Chesterbelloc

quote:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.

I never said that it wouldn't be. I said that going to confession on its own isn't worth much. Of course if someone hands themselves in and accepts the consequences that's all right, no problems there.

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.

Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.

Pretty much spot on Emma. I always explain to people at initial assessment that there are two scenarios in which I may have to break confidentiality without their permission. One is the Duty of Care (which Emma explained above) and the other is with regard to Child Protection. Specifically with regard to what they call Section 47 which is an investigation as to whether a child may be at risk of significant harm.

For me it is a complete no-brainer. If a social worker phones me up and tells me that they are doing a S47 investigation I HAVE to disclose appropriate information.

Auntie Doris x

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Hmmm.

Meseems that this is a quandary. If one does not break the seal, there is a risk that the offender will reoffend.

If one does, then there is a risk that offenders will not come to confession, and priests will not be able to counsel and persude them to give themselves up.

What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.

There is one creation with both physical and spiritual aspects. Man shares in both aspects of creation. This is why the order in the Church reflects the order in creation itself and the way the spiritual and the physical realm are cross-linked.

During confession, the sinner does not confess to the priest. The priest might well be deaf and blind. In fact, I know of people confessing to priests who can virtually not hear or see anything, but give excellent advice nevertheless. The sinner confesses his sins to Christ Himself.

If you think that confessing to the Dreadful Judge Himself doesn't mean much, then you are not understanding confession the way other traditions do. The priest is there to assure the sinner of Christ's forgiveness when Christ has actually forgiven the sinner. Just because someone went to a priest, said a few words, and the priest said his words too, this does not mean that the sacrament actually took place.

If the members of the clergy were to talk to the police, then they would not operate as priests during the sacrament. They would be eavesdropping instead of absolving in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I remember a man reaching a Greek priest to make a confession. He had committed murder and he was repentant. The priest turned out to be the brother of the man that was killed. However, not only he did not say anything to him, but when the police came in his house notifying him of the murder and asking him if he had seen the murderer, the priest helped the murderer hide and said to the police that he hadn't seen him. I don't remember the whole story from the Saint's (the priest's) life, but I think that his attitude says much about how he viewed the sacrament of confession.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.

Because confession is different from counselling. The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.

Carys

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.

In what way? Would the police or an abused child be able to understand the difference?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc.

The contention is not that nobody would confess if the seal of confession were breachable, but that those who were not prepared to give themselves up would not confess, hence you wouldn't gain anything.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Cute plan.

It wasn't a plan, my smooth-brained acquaintance, it was a descriptive example outlining the emotional state which would be characteristic of my pursuit of "technicalities" in the aforementioned hypothetical situation.

Have you noticed how often you are a total fucking tool?

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

Rook, I realize you have first dibs here, but Ingo's my favorite whipping boy, so could you cut me some slack? Besides, with my old age and such bad eyesight, I have trouble finding such easy targets.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
What's the problem Ingo? Getting tired of the tedious displays of erudition in Purg? No longer satisfied with the diminishing ego boost from the same old crowd of sycophants? Looking to expand your intellectual prowess into more Hellish domains?

Surely, you have something more useful to do? Like polish a mirror or change a diaper? Better, yet... go work on your lame-ass astrology thread.
Gort, in the not too distant past you were slowly getting to me with your personal vendetta. Then, luckily, I stumbled on a picture of you in an All Saints shipmeet thread. I laughed out loud at myself and have not been bothered by any of it since. Most people get a bit mulish and atrabilious with old age, and if constantly yapping at me is one of the few remaining pleasures in your rapidly diminishing life, so be it.

Ingo. I'm disappointed and at the same time, strangely flattered. You see, If I were "slowly getting to [you]", I assume you would have taken a moment to check my profile, where my birthdate is revealed to all and sundry. Surely, that would suggest to you a certain comfort with respect to age? Possibly, with a little imagination, it could imply a bit of pride in the wisdom of years.

Now I find that you have little respect for your seniors and [this is what really hurts] you have completely ignored my well-intentioned critiques of your destructive personality traits. When you were a mere apprentice, I took you under my wing and assumed responsibility for your well-being on these boards. I'll admit I was a bit harsh now and then, but as we both know, you are a difficult case...completely absorbed with self. So what other option would a loving father-figure have but to crush the hard nut of your ego? How else could the real Ingo burst forth and reveal his true nature?

I longed to see the day when you could accept other's opinions without the curt and dismissive ripostes for those you considered your intellectual inferiors. I've prayed you could somehow display the Christian love that you so adamantly espouse.

Alas, to my eternal shame, I have failed you.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Now I find that you have little respect for your seniors

But I have plenty of respect for seniors, that's why I'm not concerned by your antics anymore.

[ 04. May 2006, 05:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
‘Pro-child abuse'? No, no one has said that. What has been strongly implied (mostly by you, as it happens) is that your opponents are untroubled by, or accepting of, abuse. Which is not quite as insulting or absurd as suggesting that they are positively in favour of it, but it is still a fairly nasty thing to imply.

Example:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Its sad that you find this [limiting confessional secrecy] disturbing. Some of us find sexual abuse of children disturbing.
which carries the very strong inference that your correspondent does NOT appear to find child abuse disturbing.

My point is, and remains, that maintaining the seal of confession should be a much lower priority, morally, than reporting ongoing sexual abuse of a child. I was appalled, and remain appalled, at leo's initial comment which prompted my OP, which to me suggested that he/she thought the confessional seal might be a competing priority. The sarcasm dripping from the post you have quoted above reflects my anger.

quote:
Similarly your comment (to me) that:

quote:
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal.
If I, apparently, do not find child abuse ‘inexcuseable', then presumably you mean to suggest that I am willing to excuse it.

I have come very quickly in the course of this thread, Eliab, to respect your intelligence in your ability to make your points. Hence I can only assume your comment here is simply disingenuous.

I think it is quite clear from my post that this was not my intention. I am not suggesting you are willing to excuse child abuse. Rather, my point is that, while you claim deliberately breaching the confessional seal is a gross and inexcusable betrayal, I believe it is self evident that allowing sexaul abuse to continue if you know about it is a much more serious and inexcusable betrayal. In fact, I am arguing as I believe others are also that breaking the confessional seal in this instance is the moral thing to do.

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.

And I'm amazed that you're amazed. Child sexual abuse would have to be one of the most emotive issues in society today. If you can't get offended about this one, perhaps you should have someone check you for a pulse.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

There is an assumption that it is the actual perpetrator confessing when could well be the victim who is feeling guilty or a partner who knows all about who feels guilty.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.
And I'm amazed that you're amazed. Child sexual abuse would have to be one of the most emotive issues in society today. If you can't get offended about this one, perhaps you should have someone check you for a pulse.

I get very "offended" - if that's the right word - about child abuse. However, that does not translate to the outright detestation being offered here towards people who have a particular approach and solution to this particular conundrum.

Anyone would think that those promoting the sanctity of the confessional were trying to say child abuse was fine by them, the way some people are replying to them. They are not.

And your "agree with me or you must be dead" is just plain silly, even in Hell.

[ 04. May 2006, 08:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Chesterbelloc

quote:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
I never said that it wouldn't be. I said that going to confession on its own isn't worth much. Of course if someone hands themselves in and accepts the consequences that's all right, no problems there.

Going to confession on it's own isn't worth much? Even although absolution (which is the whole point of confession) would be conditional upon taking the proper actions to put things right?

Given what confession and absolution involves, and excepting the case in which someone was just going to the box to get it off their chest or to taunt the priest (and that wouldn't be confession at all), I fail to see how confession "isn't worth much on it's own" to those who wish to see the wrongs addressed. Confession "on it's own" in the sacramental context we are talking about would count for a hell of a lot.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
Just to play (ahem) devil's advocate, what about the molester going to a monastery for life?

Well, I still think that the proper course would be to insist the penintent submit themselves to civil justice as part of the penance, but at least incarceration in an enclosed order of monks would keep the offender out of children's way for good (if effectivley policed).

Pity the poor monks though...

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
but at least incarceration in an enclosed order of monks would keep the offender out of children's way for good (if effectivley policed).

I think this was the part of the philosophy behind the Servants of the Paraclete center here in Jemez, New Mexico. But instead they attempted to “rehabilitate” the offenders and then placed them back into parishes. It was only after countless children's lives were destroyed did the brothers begin to admit that these priests should forever be kept away from children. I (like most New Mexicans) do not understand why they were not required to inform law enforcement of the crimes they knew had been committed by these men.

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :

What of the following?:

X goes to a priest and, during the Sacrament of Reconciliation confesses to child abuse.
In the space between the end of X's confession and the pronunciation of absolution, the priest says that, unless X goes to the police as his penance, there will be no absolution.
If X does not agree to do so, the priest would be at liberty to go to the police himself, the seal of the confessional being invalid if there is no intention of the penance being performed, ie the penitent isn't penitent at all.

So far, so canonical?

I see no problem in the theory of this situation, however I should like to know whether a priest can delay the pronunciation of absolution until it is proven that the penance has been carried out. If, in any confession, the priest sets a penance, am I only truly absolved when I have performed it, or is the absolution unconditional? If this is so, what's the point of the penance?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
What of the following?:

X goes to a priest and, during the Sacrament of Reconciliation confesses to child abuse.
In the space between the end of X's confession and the pronunciation of absolution, the priest says that, unless X goes to the police as his penance, there will be no absolution.
If X does not agree to do so, the priest would be at liberty to go to the police himself, the seal of the confessional being invalid if there is no intention of the penance being performed, ie the penitent isn't penitent at all.

So far, so canonical?

Quickly, and only as I understand it, the seal applies to all that is in the "internal forum" of the confessional: the confession was valid if the penitent was seeking absolution, even if it cannot be given due to his/her refusal to accept the penance. Otherwise, those who imperfectly understood the nature and consequences of their sins would be in danger of having their confessions blabbed about - hardly conducive encouraging people to appoach the sacrament as to Christ himself!

quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:

I see no problem in the theory of this situation, however I should like to know whether a priest can delay the pronunciation of absolution until it is proven that the penance has been carried out. If, in any confession, the priest sets a penance, am I only truly absolved when I have performed it, or is the absolution unconditional? If this is so, what's the point of the penance?

The absolution is always conditional on the genuine repentance of the penitant - and therefore on the performance of the penance insofar as that is a reasonable expression of it. Anything else would be a mockery of the sacrament.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Chesterbelloc is correct. The seal is not only binding if absolution is given. It is binding on all matters relating to the internal forum.

Running a rehab centre is another matter. And the question becomes tricky indeed. What would the police have done? What happened when custodial sentences were served and inmantes released? Tagging is a very recent thing. We are setting standards for the past based on knowledge and experience in the present. Rehab centres thought they were doing the best possible thing. I do not think they would follow the same code of conduct now, in the light of what has become general knowledge.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I have come very quickly in the course of this thread, Eliab, to respect your intelligence in your ability to make your points. Hence I can only assume your comment here is simply disingenuous.

Well only to the extent that I don’t think you would have articulated your view in the same way that I did. I did genuinely think that when you wrote your first response to me the substance of it was to suggest that my view of child abuse was more tolerant than it ought to be.

If that wasn’t being suggested (or was then, but isn’t now) then I apologise.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
My point is, and remains, that maintaining the seal of confession should be a much lower priority, morally, than reporting ongoing sexual abuse of a child. I was appalled, and remain appalled, at leo's initial comment which prompted my OP, which to me suggested that he/she thought the confessional seal might be a competing priority.

I can see that. But it assumes that both sides have formulated the problem in the same way – a straight choice between snitching and complicity when a particular case of abuse is revealed – and I don’t think that my side are actually answering that question at all.

This is where I’m coming from: Suppose our hypothetical priest* justifies breaking Mrs Smith’s confidence when he learns that she repeatedly hits and torments her son. He’ll find it quite difficult to keep quiet about Mr Jones beating his wife. Then he’ll want to do something about Ms McManus, who doesn’t actually hit her girlfriend, but is slowly driving her to a nervous breakdown by threats and emotional abuse. Or inform someone about Mrs Atkins, who is planning to leave her invalid husband and five children (for Dr Brown, who frequently seduces his patients and will certainly tire of her within a year). Does he warn Mr Singh, whose wife is working through their life-savings to feed her internet poker habit? Or Mrs Atreides, whose husband has been too ashamed to tell her that he has lost his job, so that she can take some action to prevent their home from being repossessed?

Clearly not all these sins are morally equivalent, but they all involve some long-term and non-trivial harm to a vulnerable person, which the priest might possibly be able to mitigate. In each individual case, a very plausible case could be made that the duty to protect the innocent outweighs the duty to preserve the confidence of the guilty.

And there’s no real counter argument if you look only at the individual case. The ‘best’ thing to do is to tell. But the outcome of all those individual decisions would be that in fact nothing our priest hears is confidential at all. The only answer is to say that though keeping silence in any one instance might be very hard, it is better that all these sinners, and countless others, are able to receive spiritual counsel with the guarantee of secrecy, than that they are not. Overall, though maybe not in any one case, that institution leads to less abuse, less violence, less adultery, less deceit and less human pain, than would occur if it did not exist.

The choice, from my side of the debate, is not about ‘what to do about this particular confession?’ but ‘is there a place for an institution of absolute confidentiality?’. If the answer to that question (primarily a practical one, not a moral one) is ‘yes’ then there is no choice left about individual cases. If you have complete secrecy, then you cannot break it, no matter what, so there is never a point at which the penitent’s rights are weighed against the victim’s. As soon as you start doing that, you aren’t working within the context of confidentiality at all. If you think (as I do) that it really is better that the option of confidentiality exists than that it does not, it is simply impossible to look at an individual case in the way that you are doing – the choice, however hard it is, was already made when the institution was created.

(NOTE* I’ve never heard anyone’s confession, so I am only assuming that these are plausible things for a priest to hear in confidence. If anyone doubts that, assume that the confidant is a lawyer. I can vouch for the fact that lawyers hear exactly this sort of thing under rules of professional confidence.)

[ 04. May 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.

In what way? Would the police or an abused child be able to understand the difference?

Confession isn't just telling someone something that should not go any further (which is a low level of confidentiality) but confessing our sins to God in the presence of a priest. The primary relationship is not between the two humans but between the penitent and God. Then there is the issue of penance/with-holding absolution. The penitent expects a response from the priest and as others have said here that would probably include an expectation that the penitent say something to someone else. Not breaking the seal is not the same as not changing the situation. The point those of us who think that the seal is absolute are making is that either the seal is there or it isn't and if it isn't confession is weakened because without the seal it's too dangerous.

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There is an assumption that it is the actual perpetrator confessing when could well be the victim who is feeling guilty or a partner who knows all about who feels guilty.

Josephine mentioned this and I agree that it is a key point. But, I would argue that it is an argument in favour of the seal because being able to talk to someone about it without the fear of the offender being arrested (and given the power they have over the victim the victim isn't going to want this)* might be the first step in being able to break out of the abusive situation.

Josephine wrote:

quote:

I don't know how this plays out in the case of child abuse, but I do know how it works in the case of spouse abuse. A priest can intervene effectively without breaking the seal of the confessional, by what he requires of the person making the confession. This is true whether he learns of the abuse from the abuser or from the person being abused.

That is a much more concrete response than our hypothetical discussions.

Carys

*My only vaguely comparable experience is bullying at school and I know that I saw no point in telling anyone because it would only make the situation worse.

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

I accept and appreciate your apology Eliab.

I don't accept the philosophy that if you allow the breach of confidentiality for one sin, you throw confidentiality as a whole out of the window. However, I perceive that if it were just up to an individual's judgement on a case by case basis confidentiality would be virtually meaningless, as the priest would have a subjective standard (which the individual confessing would have no way of knowing beforehand) for each sin confessed.

But ongoing sexual abuse of a child is the most heinous sin/crime there is, IMO. Morally, I believe a priest should be able to break confidence in this instance, and in fact is compelled to. I am not suggesting open slather, merely when ongoing sexual abuse of a child or children is involved.

Further, I appreciate that it is not always a black and white decision to make morally, especially if the victim does not want action taken.

Unless anyone wants to respond to my posts further, I am happy for the hellhosts to close this.

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

I would like to say that I for one have found this thread to be informative and constructive for the most part, and think it would be sad to see it deleted for ever.

Is there any way it can be closed and also archived for future reference?

Blessings craig b

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Well played, DarkKnight. The thread shall be closed.

Should anyone feel an overwhelming need to say something else, they should PM a Hellhost to petition for having it reopened.

While there is a possibility that this thread could be preserved in Limbo, it is by no means certain. Anybody who would like to keep their own copy of it are encouraged to do so before the standard 48-hour moratorium on deletion expires.

-RooK
Hellhost

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0