|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Royal commission into sexual abuse and the confessional seal, etc.
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
For those outside the Commonwealth: what a Royal commission entails.
Our PM has announced a royal commission into institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse in Australia. This was announced yesterday.
Worth noting: although the catalyst for the commission was most likely the recent allegations made by Peter Fox that the Catholic church were covering up sexual abuse allegations, the commission will not only be investigating the Catholic church.
When I first learned of the royal commission, I felt that it was a good thing. I still do. However, another thing that occurred to me very quickly was the potential problems arising from the collision between the special powers of the royal commission and the confidentiality of the confessional seal.
I am not Catholic myself, and I have argued before on these boards that the confessional seal should not apply in the case of confessions of abuse. The theological nature of the seal has been explained to me, again on these boards. To my own surprise, I find that now I am far more ambivalent about the issue than in the past. While I still believe that child sexual abuse is a unique case, and that the confessional seal should not enable abuse, I am very uncomfortable with the possibility that priests may be faced with the choice of either breaking the seal or incarceration.
Apparently, similar thoughts have crossed the minds of our media, Cardinal George Pell and some politicians already.
What do you all think? And if the discussion moves on to other features of the royal commission, well that's fine too. I think it is a big deal.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I've never met a Catholic priest whom I wouldn't trust to choose incarceration over breaking the seal of the confessional.
But is it such an issue? Can't the commission draw a reasonable inference from "I am unable to answer that question"?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Tyrants like secret police. They like it even better when they don't have to pay them.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
In the CofE (UK) there is a chain of reasoning which goes like this:
If a person confesses a sin, but is not adequately penitent (eg refuses to tell appropriate authority) then absolution should be withheld, and therefore also the sacrament of Holy Communion.
There is a canonical obligation on the minister to inform the bishop - Canon B16
quote:
If a minister be persuaded that anyone of his cure who presents himself to be a partaker of the Holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the bishop of the diocese or other the Ordinary of the place and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the sacrament to any until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table: Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the congregation the minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the furthest and therein obey his order and direction. Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford to him an opportunity for interview.
The minister cannot tell the bishop why, of course, but the bishop will be able to notify others that the person ought not to be admitted. This is not hugely satisfactory, and the use of the word "open" is awkward.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
AFAIK the response would be more like "I regret that I am unable even to confirm or deny that said person came to me in confession, let alone what night or might not have been spoken about."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Given what has already come out regarding recent paedophilia activities in this country (Detective Senior Inspector Peter Fox was speaking specifically on matters under investigation in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newcastle) I do not think there will be any need to investigate what may, or may not, have been said in the confessional.
It is interesting that Fr Frank Brennan SJ, a firm supporter of the need for this Royal Commission and the last man to attempt to shelter paedophiles, is also very strong on the sanctity of the confessional.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Sir P: the commission is into child sexual abuse, not paedophilia. They are not the same thing.
There may indeed be enough for a commission to wade through without worrying about what may have been said in the confessional. The practice of shifting priests, ministers or children's workers who were known to be abusers can be investigated regardless, I would think.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
As I suspected, the government and the church are not remotely on the same page with regard to the confessional seal.
Clearly, there are theological and ethical issues here in which the church and the state will differ. However, and this is a very different issue (involving a lot of the same people) there are also pragmatic issues. Having spoken to some mental health professionals prior to the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse in my state (WA), it seems that the evidence that it stops abuse is at best inconclusive. Also, will there be enough resources to deal with the landslide of abuse that the commission will uncover? It is unsurprising that lawyers and politicians - wonderful human beings that they are known to be ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) - are keen to uncover all this and deal with the legal consequences. The fallout is also going to place a significant burden on mental health workers, pastoral carers and families. I have seen no evidence that we are prepared for that.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Does the confessional seal apply to child abuse situations? And in what countries? In Canada, as far as I know, a priest who heard a confession of child sexual assault is obliged by law to report it. There is no absolute right to confessional privacy. I think this the correct policy. That rationale being prevention of harm to future victims.
That said, the person confessing it is doing so out of a sense of guilt, and thus should be prepared to report on themselves, with the priest's support, one would logically think.
Those who oppose mandatory reporting are not considering the working through of issues of guilt, remorse, penitence and forgiveness rationally and fully and should rather shut-up until they engage their brains. Priests (and others) have responsibilities to individuals, and to the wider society - at the same time, not at different times, all the time. They need to figure out how to manage their several responsibilities, and develop mechanisms of ethical problem solving. God forbid if priest had ethical codes and training in solving problems when principles of individual issues conflict with principles of societal issues and issues of unknown others. If they have not done this, well, I guess they haven't. A sorry shame, and a disgrace.
[ 14. November 2012, 02:01: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Child sex abuse is the carrying out of paedophile urges, Dark Night.
But I fear you are on a roll with your "confession" theme and nothing will stop you.
Perhaps a look at Eureka Street - an Australian Catholic magazine edited by the Jesuits - might show the RCC in this country is not intent on covering up these crimes?
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those who oppose mandatory reporting are not considering the working through of issues of guilt, remorse, penitence and forgiveness rationally and fully and should rather shut-up until they engage their brains.
no prophet, this is nonsense. I understand this is an emotive issue, but it is not those who oppose mandatory reporting who need to engage their brains, it is you. The opposition to mandatory reporting is based on research and reasoning. It has not been demonstrated to lead to higher substantiation of abuse claims (in fact, WA had higher substantiation of abuse claims than the other states prior to adoption of mandatory reporting in 2009). It makes politicians and the public feel better about the fact that abuse is not being covered up.
Examples of brain engagement:
Australian Doctor's fund - this includes a statement against mandatory reporting by Moira Raynor, who is very much in favour of the royal commission.
UWA paper on mandatory reporting (links to PDF). The shapshot of the evidence reports that child sexual abuse is a threshold offence, and that it should be reported. However, it notes that mandatory reporting is not the most important issue, but whether or not there are sufficient funded resources to support victims and families.
Something from the US: this time lawyers questioning the efficacy of mandatory reporting, which may lead to more accusations but not more convictions (in fact, the opposite).
Personally, I would report allegations of child sexual abuse, and I think most people should, and would, do the same. But I understand professionals who take another position, and it is not because they are stupid or heartless.
As to the confessional seal, I will leave that to someone more qualified to comment. I was under the impression that it cannot be pierced under any circumstances, or within any jurisdiction.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Child sex abuse is the carrying out of paedophile urges, Dark Night.
Not to be precious, but my displayed name here is Dark Knight, with a 'K.' As I have told you this on at least two other occasions, I am starting to wonder whether you are misusing it deliberately. Please, for the third time, stop.
More importantly, regarding what is your substantive point - so fucking what? Paedophile urges are not a crime. Child sexual abuse is. Which is why I corrected you.
quote:
But I fear you are on a roll with your "confession" theme and nothing will stop you.
The OP was about the confessional seal. Did you read it? That is what I started the thread about.
quote:
Perhaps a look at Eureka Street - an Australian Catholic magazine edited by the Jesuits - might show the RCC in this country is not intent on covering up these crimes?
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/
You appear to have a talent both for not reading what is present, but also reading what in fact is not. If you think that I have suggested anywhere that the Catholic church is intent on covering up sexual abuse, than you are simply wrong. I do not believe that. I trust that is clear enough for you.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
no prophet writes that:
quote:
Does the confessional seal apply to child abuse situations? And in what countries? In Canada, as far as I know, a priest who heard a confession of child sexual assault is obliged by law to report it. There is no absolute right to confessional privacy. I think this the correct policy. That rationale being prevention of harm to future victims.
With the RCC, IIRC the confessional seal is absolute, although moral theologians have written about possible exceptions. I do not know of any RC cleric who would not prefer hard time to breaking the seal.
Canadian law is not so absolute and, while some provinces allow priest/penitent confide4nces, generally speaking "religous communications" fall under the common law, and there are a range of criteria outlined by Justice Wigmore to provide a context where a particular communication might be privileged.
But, as I've noted, we would likely see clerics enter into prison chaplaincy rather than break the seal.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Criminal Law, which is federal, does not recognize the confessional seal in any absolute sense, but I have never heard of any Roman Catholic priest being called to testify about things heard in the confessional. Most of it would be hearsay anyway.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tabernacle
Apprentice
# 17393
|
Posted
I would be glad to know the abuser told someone, rather than nobody.
It is best to create a space where people may feel they can be honest.
Police stations don't tend to offer any such accommodation, to tell your story so honestly, so thank God there is confessional at least.
I'd rather the truth is out there someplace, rather than nowhere.
Posts: 17 | From: Seattle | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Child sex abuse is the carrying out of paedophile urges, Dark Night.
I disagree that child sexual abuse is always first about the fulfillment of a paedophillic inclination.
As with other forms of abuse, the impulsion may come from a variety of colourful and equally disagreeable sources, often, I would argue, relating to power differentials (is that a buzz word, by the way? Sorry if it is and therefore causes involuntary retching) rather than / as well as sexual desires.
Further, what of underage abusers? They could not, by the technical definition of the word, be labelled "paedophiles".
All of this to say, however, that I hope your statement comes simply from a lax use of language; I would hate to think that you regularly brandy about specific and potent terminology with little regard for the effect such use may have on your audience. Because that would be at best, careless or arrogant, and at worst, bigoted.
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tabernacle:
I would be glad to know the abuser told someone, rather than nobody.
It is best to create a space where people may feel they can be honest.
Police stations don't tend to offer any such accommodation, to tell your story so honestly, so thank God there is confessional at least.
I'd rather the truth is out there someplace, rather than nowhere.
(Are we getting off-topic, DK???)
Mully, forging on nonetheless...
Sexual abuse is a criminal offense; a police station, therefore (or court of law or other such place), is an entirely appropriate environment for the perpetrator to discuss their crimes.
Tabernacle, I wonder if you are referring more to the rehabilitatitive, rather than investigative, process.
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
(Doh! Trying to post on mobile! Gah... Might a sympathetic Host delete the double-up for clarity on the thread? Unless we all need a laugh at a dyslexic's expense ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
quote:
Originally posted by Tabernacle:
I would be glad to know the abuser told someone, rather than nobody.
It is best to create a space where people may feel they can be honest.
Police stations don't tend to offer any such accommodation, to tell your story so honestly, so thank God there is confessional at least.
I'd rather the truth is out there someplace, rather than nowhere.
(Are we getting off-topic, DK???)
Mully, forging on nonetheless...
Forge away. You make a very good point:
quote:
Originally posted by Mullygrub:
Sexual abuse is a criminal offense; a police station, therefore (or court of law or other such place), is an entirely appropriate environment for the perpetrator to discuss their crimes.
Tabernacle, I wonder if you are referring more to the rehabilitatitive, rather than investigative, process.
I also would like to hear more from Tabernacle on her/his point. I'm not sure I understand it. What is the point of the truth being 'out there' if it is not accomplishing the goal of making the victim safer?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
Good-o!
Continued, less high-horsey, reflection, however, leads me to assume that Taberbacle is, in fact, responding in context with the OP.
Just in a flakey, "let us love everyone" kind of way.
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Don't mean to detract from the current lines of discussion but just wondered if anyone had an answer to my biggest question:
Will a royal commission help or hinder children from future victimisation?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
No answer, ES. I have followed the discussion on you FB thread too.
I think that positive outcomes of the RC would be changes in structures within organisations in relation to reporting abuse, and particularly accountability for dealing with the issue straight away, rather than moving the offender on and making them someone else's problem. Hopefully, the commission will also recommend more funding for organisations which provide support for victims. So those things will be good.
Perhaps if victims know that if they report what is happening, there will be a series of things that should happen, resulting in them being protected from the abuser, it will encourage more to come forward. Given the victims are often children, it is difficult to see how that message can be conveyed.
I hope it doesn't simply result in another set of procedures that organisations use to cover their own arses, legally. In this era of risk management, we certainly have a lot of that.
Hopefully, institutional patronage and protection of serial predators will be stamped out. However, given that most sexual abuse happens within families, and is not the work of the predatorial 'monster' of our imaginings, but rather people known, perhaps loved, and often related to the victim - well, I just don't know if the RC will have any impact on that.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just a reminder that deliberate mucking around with Shipmates' onboard names is a no-no here in Purgatory. Inadvertent spellos are one thing, (most of us do that on occasions), pointed misuse is another.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
DK, statistics about higher reporting rates are just statistics. And I doubt very much that any of them are valid anyway. Mandatory reporting means a more careful looking through of how we think about the vulnerable. It means a rethink for confession and what it means, and it means that confession must involve something more than some independent praying.
Consider: person confesses to urges and 'in the past' child abuse. If truly in the past, a child is not currently in need of protection, so mandatory reporting does not apply. There is no child in need of protection.
Consider: person confesses to abusing child in the home presently, perhaps last night. Does the priest believe they are qualified to assess the risk to the child? For tomorrow night? The seal of confession, if fully kept, means the priest will not prevent future occurrences and could have. Of course, the priest can claim ignorance if the person never returns to confession.
There is a much more careful working through required than the "we can't" that I detect on the part of the those objecting beyond this thread.
My comment about brains is not about you nor anyone else on the ship, rather those in the links, sorry if not clear. As an aside, I should note that I have worked in mental health, coordinating with social services almost exclusively with children for 15 years of a 30 year career and responsible for half of the province in which I live for a good measure of time. I actually do know what I'm talking about at both the service delivery front line level as well as policy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
no prophet, it impossible to discuss anything with you in regard to this issue. You always know best, you reject any reference to the literature (it is not all stats, as you would know if you bothered to read them), and you cite your own experience as if that is all that is relevant.
So I'm done discussing this with you, until you are ready to engage.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
(Thanks, Barnabas62, for removing my bugger up ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
Tabernacle? Are you just posting the article for interest's sake, or actually making a point? I'd be interested to hear it if you are, is all.
And while you're at it, perhaps you might also respond to our earlier wonderings?
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Veritable rafts of discussion about the confessional issue in the Australian media at the moment.
Perhaps the most interesting thing I saw was a retired Catholic bishop simultaneously saying that priests ought to be prepared to break the confessional seal AND that it probably wouldn't actually make any difference.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-14/retired-bishop-says-pell-an-embarassment/4371794
Another prominent Catholic priest also observed that over several decades, he never had anyone confess to pedophilia.
I do suspect the current focus on this particular issue is not very realistic.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tabernacle
Apprentice
# 17393
|
Posted
I believe implicitly in the secrecy of the confessional.
I think it is best the child abuser have a space to speak honestly, rather than no place at all.
If the church is unsafe for confessional, then offenders will never open up at all, and so in their privacy and secrecy making way for darker troubles.
The clergy can help people in ways that therapists and police agencies cannot.
Posts: 17 | From: Seattle | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
Thanks for responding, Tabernacle.
It seems that, whereas I am strongly biased towards safety for the survivors first (vis a vis, whatever needs to happen to make and keep these children (including those who are now adults themselves) safe (=>locking up the bastards who hurt them so that they can't hurt them or anyone else again)), your bias, Tabernacle, appears to be towards creating safety for the perpetrators so that confession (little 'c', not big 'C') may occur, to the end of cathartic release for them, with a hopeful eye towards them eventually informing authorities so that they might finally be punished appropriately for their crimes.
Have I understood your position? And if so, this is why I suspect we shall never agree. We be da sprekkin ze different langwidge.
[ 15. November 2012, 03:57: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tabernacle:
The clergy can help people in ways that therapists and police agencies cannot.
Police agencies, I'll grant you, in that I can see a clear difference in function.
Help in ways that therapists can't? I'm less sure about that. I'd be interested if you expanded on what the clergy can do that therapists can't.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
I'm not in a tradition where specific planned confession is the norm but over time I've effectively performed that function.
In one on one meetings where it begins to look like something is going to be dicussed that may be harmful or illegal now - or has been so in the past - I would stop the discussion (and have done), to say that disclosure doesn't necessarily equate to secrecy. That is, my responsibility doesn't begin and end in the interview but goes on to others who may be affected and depending on what is said, I cannot guarantee that the conversation will stay between us.
On 2 occasions I have had to refer issues raised to child protection, having given the warning.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tabernacle:
I believe implicitly in the secrecy of the confessional.
I think it is best the child abuser have a space to speak honestly, rather than no place at all.
If the church is unsafe for confessional, then offenders will never open up at all, and so in their privacy and secrecy making way for darker troubles.
The clergy can help people in ways that therapists and police agencies cannot.
Broadly, I agree with this (though as orfeo has commented, the last sentence is quite enigmatic). The problem is with secrecy leading to the enabling of the abuse to continue.
Exclamation Mark's approach seems in keeping with Cardinal Pell's advice that priests refuse to hear confessions relating to child abuse.
As far as the victim goes, it is important that the abuser be stopped and the former be kept safe. For the perpetrator, assuming she/he survives the hysteria that surrounds this particular crime (both inside and outside prison), being caught and facing the consequences is the only path to possible recovery.
I hope that the story linked to in orfeo's post is correct, and there is no need to challenge the seal. I think there is enough the commission can do without doing that, IMO.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Hopefully, institutional patronage and protection of serial predators will be stamped out. However, given that most sexual abuse happens within families, and is not the work of the predatorial 'monster' of our imaginings, but rather people known, perhaps loved, and often related to the victim - well, I just don't know if the RC will have any impact on that.
Might it send a message to child abusers that this is no longer socially acceptable? And send a message to those that try cover for those abusers that it is no longer acceptable to cover for them?
Might it send a message to people in homes and those that deal with children in homes that a culture of silence and cover up is no longer acceptable? Might it encourage adults to listen to children rather than ignore them when they tell them of abuses?
Here's to hoping..... ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Interesting to hear the language of demonisation being acceptable in institutions but not homes. The words "evil" and "demonic" have been bandied about on FB and by the PM in regard to institutions. But its not acceptable when applied to parents and relatives? Odd that.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
FFS Evensong, there is a whole other thread where you can thrash that out. I and others are trying to have a rational conversation about this, without using that language or imagery.
As to your other points, no one is on the other side of that issue. Nobody thinks child abuse is socially acceptable. No thinks it is ok to cover for abusers. It is one thing to be defiant ... But needless defiance is a waste of energy, and results in more heat than light.
leo - the RC is in Australia. Here, we have mandatory reporting in every state, so all counsellors are obliged to report to police if someone discloses.
[ 15. November 2012, 12:32: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tabernacle
Apprentice
# 17393
|
Posted
Everyone is aware there is scandal within the priesthood.
Not everyone is aware of the amount of child abuse prevention that comes as a result of church related activities, like confessional.
For many people religion reaches deeper and more effectively than psychotherapy.
Posts: 17 | From: Seattle | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tabernacle:
Not everyone is aware of the amount of child abuse prevention that comes as a result of church related activities, like confessional.
You can look at things another way: no one can quantify how much child abuse is perpetuated (at least, is not prevented) by the so called "sanctity" of the confessional.
Don't be under any illusions: while people are aware of the issues surrounding clergy and abuse, such activity is not confined in churches to the clregy. It's an issue with the "laity" too.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Just to clarify. We need to understand what is meant by "most sexual abuse occurs in families". Here, we think of family as some adults (usually 1 or 2) sharing a home with some children usually their biological progeny. And this immediate family group may be a venue for sexual abuse. However, family also includes cousins, uncles, grandparents, and biologically unrelated adults such as step parents, and, in function, people who are 'like' family, but not actually family. The definition of family may include close others, whether blood related or not, who have relationships with children. Risks would appear higher from these slightly more distant people toward children if we go with conviction/incarceration statistics. However, statistics do not tell the full story, as some types of abuse are more reported than others, in part due to the nature of relationships between the adults and children.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
no prophet, I suspect most of your posting counterparts here and on similar threads have some level of awareness as to what constitutes "family" in this context.
So: were you making a point, or just trying to be, er, helpful?
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Mollygrub: the attribution of most offences to family does not mean parents or siblings.
[ 16. November 2012, 01:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
no prophet, it's Mullygrub.
And what I was getting at was that my impression of folks on this thread (and other similar ones) is that they generally demonstrate a pretty broad and well-informed level of understanding, such that I reckon they get that "family" in the current context of discussion encompasses a broader sphere than just biological nuclear family.
But maybe I'm just being generous in my expectation of their knowledge-base. I mean, God forbid that my optimistic opinions of others be smashed upon the cold pavement of reality in the vast sweep of patronising fuckery that passes for polite conversation within some circles.
And that's a metaphor, by the way, just to be clear.
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mullygrub
Up and over
# 9113
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Mollygrub: the attribution of most offences to family does not mean parents or siblings.
Waaaaaaaait a second there; was this you answering my question? If so, I apologise for the tone of my previous post.
If not, then I'll leave it as it stands
--------------------
Smurfs are weird. And so am I.
Posts: 634 | From: Melbskies | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Over here in the West, our new Catholic archbishop has made it clear that he will not breach the confessional.
He also made what I perceive to be a similar point to Tabernacle's earlier: quote:
"The imposition of the obligation of mandatory reporting of abuse confessed to a priest will mean that the one chance some offenders might have to finally confront and deal with their crime, and sin, is lost to them. This does not seem to be a good way to protect vulnerable children."
I really want to understand this, but I simply don't. How can abusers deal with their crime without confessing and facing legal consequences? More importantly, how can children be protected unless abusers are kept safely away from them? The confessional, on its own, surely cannot achieve this.
Also, this
awful story was in our paper today.
for the mother and family.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
womanspeak
Shipmate
# 15394
|
Posted
Since 1996, not one of 620 incidents of child sexual abuse involving the Australian Roman Catholic Church have been passed on to police or other authorities.
Despite the Australian National Council of Churches establishment of a Safe Church training Agreement to which all major denominations have agreed, only two Roman Catholic Diocese have joined.
Of greatest value of such standard training in encouraging safe ministry, is common training in the mandatory nature of notification and awareness of safe practice among laity and clergy alike.
Perhaps it is a lack of training for both clergy and laity in the Roman Catholic Church which permits entrenched abusers and their enablers.
Statistics compiled by the Victorian Commission into sexual abuse show six times the abuse within the RC Church compared to all the other Churches combined. There must be a reason for this disgraceful bias which hopefully the Federal Royal Commission will highlight. This has nothing to do with confessional practices but a lack of supervisory and awareness training.
--------------------
from the bush
Posts: 62 | From: rural australia | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Statistics compiled by the Victorian Commission into sexual abuse show six times the abuse within the RC Church compared to all the other Churches combined. There must be a reason for this disgraceful bias which hopefully the Federal Royal Commission will highlight. This has nothing to do with confessional practices but a lack of supervisory and awareness training. [/QB]
A belief that the church is above and beyond the civil law also plays a factor i suspect.
Must say that I also think the focus on the confessional is misplaced. The RC church has failed to act appropriately when there have been multiple victims, witnesses and when there has been instances of community concern the offender would be moved to another area of the country of OS. This abuse goes way beyond a failure to report things said in confession.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Why on EARTH are RC hierarchies so against following Safe From Harm policies?
In the Baptist churches, like with many other Protestant structures- abuse is admittedto - the leaders HAVE to inform the authorities.
Screw them. RC church - if there is endemic abuse, OPEN THE FUCKING FILES!
The Catholic churches need to join the rest of us re best practice legislation...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Over here in the West, our new Catholic archbishop has made it clear that he will not breach the confessional.
In that case
1. He's not fit to be in a position of responsibility
2. Get the Police to arrest him for aiding and abetting a crime.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
