Thread: Royal commission into sexual abuse and the confessional seal, etc. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024154
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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"?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Tyrants like secret police. They like it even better when they don't have to pay them.
 
Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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] - 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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
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/
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tabernacle (# 17393) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
(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] )
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tabernacle (# 17393) on :
 
http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/priests-should-never-keep-paedophile-confessions-s/1620728/

[Help]
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
(Thanks, Barnabas62, for removing my bugger up [Hot and Hormonal] )

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?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tabernacle (# 17393) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
After the seal of the confessional, the other bastion of confidentiality/secrecy is the Samaritans (UK counselling agency for people contemplating suicide).

I wonder if the commission will look at their strict confidentiality rules.

[ 15. November 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
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] [Votive] [Votive]

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.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Tabernacle (# 17393) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
@ DK. Ok. My bad. sigh.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Mollygrub: the attribution of most offences to family does not mean parents or siblings.

[ 16. November 2012, 01:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
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 [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
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.
[Votive] for the mother and family.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
God Almighty.

[Votive]
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
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...
Agreed! As a BUGB accredited minister in the UK, I've had 2 occasions when private conversations have led to certain disclosures. I reported both and told the individuals concerned I would.

I would do it again without demur.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
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.
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 This does not seem to be a good way to protect vulnerable children."
It's not the one chance far from it.

Also theoretically if I created a new religion today and stated that x aspect of it was above civil law how far do you think I would get?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
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.
I think this is far more important than anything to do with the confessional seal.

Even if there are people in the church who are attempting to do something good in the internal processes, they really need to understand that treating these cases as purely internal matters is NOT a good look - whether to the public, or to the victims.

We're talking about criminal matters here. Not civil torts where "how much money do we need to give you to settle this" works as a resolution. The attempts at damage containment can easily end up making the damage worse.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
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.
What evidence do you have for this statement?

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.
Someone told me that statistic came up in an article in the The Melbourne Age from a lawyer. I asked that person for evidence cited. They laughed. "The Age" they said?

Then they said it could be a issue of proportions as Catholic care might account for 6-times the number of children in care.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
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.
I think this is far more important than anything to do with the confessional seal.

Even if there are people in the church who are attempting to do something good in the internal processes, they really need to understand that treating these cases as purely internal matters is NOT a good look - whether to the public, or to the victims.

We're talking about criminal matters here. Not civil torts where "how much money do we need to give you to settle this" works as a resolution. The attempts at damage containment can easily end up making the damage worse.
Agreed.
Like Evensong, I would like to hear womanspeak's sources.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
This story on the ABC news website cites Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton's testimony before a Victoria state parliament inquiry:
quote:
GRAHAM ASHTON: Since 1996 the Catholic Church of Victoria has upheld approximately 620 cases of child, criminal child abuse, none of which they have reported to police.

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
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...
Agreed! As a BUGB accredited minister in the UK, I've had 2 occasions when private conversations have led to certain disclosures. I reported both and told the individuals concerned I would.

I would do it again without demur.
A private conversation with a minister (in supposed confidence) is different from sacramental confession in which the penitent confesses to God - not to the priest but in the presence of a priest.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
Sorry. Wrong. Very wrong.

Vilely wicked though child abuse is, the seal of the confessional is more important. A priest who refuses to delate to the state what is confessed in the confessional and is imprisoned or worse is a martyr and entitled to be respected as such. There are certain things that prevail over the state whether it is being well-intentioned or ill.

Remember the Catholic Church looks at things over the centuries and draws on the experience of previous, and different crises, including those where it may have failed. If the state says that Jews are wicked, enemies of humanity, to be rounded up and taken to Concentration Camps, and that anyone who finds out about the location of any Jew is to go straight to the Police with the information on pain of suffering the same fate, and that no duty of confidentiality shall be any defence, is a priest to do his duty to the State and delate, or to God, and conceal, at whatever the cost.

All of us, I hope, would say that the duty of confidentiality prevails here, irrespective of whether under the seal of the confessional or not.

First they came for the child-abusers. Then they came for the money-launderers. Then they came for the illegal immigrants. Then they came for the travellers ......
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[
Vilely wicked though child abuse is, the seal of the confessional is more important. A priest who refuses to delate to the state what is confessed in the confessional and is imprisoned or worse is a martyr and entitled to be respected as such. There are certain things that prevail over the state whether it is being well-intentioned or ill.

Remember the Catholic Church looks at things over the centuries and draws on the experience of previous, and different crises, including those where it may have failed. If the state says that Jews are wicked, enemies of humanity, to be rounded up and taken to Concentration Camps, and that anyone who finds out about the location of any Jew is to go straight to the Police with the information on pain of suffering the same fate, and that no duty of confidentiality shall be any defence, is a priest to do his duty to the State and delate, or to God, and conceal, at whatever the cost.

All of us, I hope, would say that the duty of confidentiality prevails here, irrespective of whether under the seal of the confessional or not.

First they came for the child-abusers. Then they came for the money-launderers. Then they came for the illegal immigrants. Then they came for the travellers ...... [/QB]
[Projectile] [Projectile] [Projectile]

Your reasoning sums up for me what is a moral bankruptcy in Roman Catholicism and I hope that it is the exception rather than the rule in the RC church but it appears that may not be the case. To lay down one's life to save the life of/prevent harm to others is praiseworthy to be willing to lay down one's life to prevent child abusers being stopped is evil and morally warped.

Reporting child abuse is not about a Priest doing his duty to the state it's about a Priest doing his duty to God by protecting children.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
First they came for the child-abusers. Then they came for the money-launderers. Then they came for the illegal immigrants. Then they came for the travellers ......
Evangeline has responded rightly to your wrongness, and this additional part is just plain idiocy as well as evil.

There is no equation between money laundering and rape of a child. None. Nor between immigration and whatever a traveller might be. That you even try to do this shows that you have not the slightest inkling of understanding. It cannot be rebuked in strong enough terms. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]
1. All of us, I hope, would say that the duty of confidentiality prevails here, irrespective of whether under the seal of the confessional or not.
There is no duty of confidentiality where the greater harm lies in hearing but doing nothing.

Frankly I am not interested in anyone's tradition, simply in justice and grace - sometimes that demands I make a value judgement on what is "right" and what constitues the greater evil.

TBH, I'll take my chance on this one on not being fully in accordance with God's will.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] A private conversation with a minister (in supposed confidence) is different from sacramental confession in which the penitent confesses to God - not to the priest but in the presence of a priest.
Nope. I don't agree.

I am a priest wherever I am - and God hears any conversation, as it is all sacramental.

Even if it were not the case (and you were right), I'd still be duty bound to report it anyway.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
You may disagree, but leo has summed up the theological underpinning of the confessional in the traditions that practice it. At least AFAIK. Your tradition may differ.
I am hoping that the seal will not be challenged as a result of this RC. As orfeo and others have pointed out, the major problems the RC is being set up to investigate are much broader than the confessional, and can be satisfactorily addressed without reference to it.
The media over here continues to focus on it, though. Perhaps because it seems so mysterious and is really hard to justify without reference to a tradition that many in this very pluralist society are baffled by.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Remember the Catholic Church looks at things over the centuries and draws on the experience of previous, and different crises, including those where it may have failed. If the state says that Jews are wicked, enemies of humanity, to be rounded up and taken to Concentration Camps, and that anyone who finds out about the location of any Jew is to go straight to the Police with the information on pain of suffering the same fate, and that no duty of confidentiality shall be any defence, is a priest to do his duty to the State and delate, or to God, and conceal, at whatever the cost.

All of us, I hope, would say that the duty of confidentiality prevails here, irrespective of whether under the seal of the confessional or not.
That is a really poor analogy. In that scenario, Jews are the victims, plain and simple. Child abusers are not victims, the children they are hurting are victims. In short, being Jewish is not morally wrong, but being a child abuser is.

You could argue that abusers are victimised by society after their crimes are revealed, or victimised in prison, or whatever. I am sympathetic to that point, even if others quite plainly aren't. However, the primary victim is the child, and his/her protection must take priority.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Well said, Annabel Crabb. As usual.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
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.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that a representative from the Victorian police said something to this effect in the course of the current Victorian inquiry.

They certainly said something that indicated the police were very unhappy at what they perceived as a lack of cooperation from the Roman Catholic church.

[ 18. November 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
My recollection was correct. It was a Deputy Commissioner who said this.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I feel that all this talk about the confessional seal is probably a smokescreen aimed at reducing the ranks of those opposed to the RCC by confusion and division, a vintage George Pell strategy. If you go back to the story linked in the OP you'll see no mention of the confessional seal, and even a claim from the Prime Minister than Pell was "taking a very co-operative attitude." So on the one hand we have this co-operative attitude, then from the same source this diversion into arguing over the confessional seal.

If that's the case, then most of the media has swallowed it hook, line and sinker - a whole lot of people who would in general all be in favour of the Royal Commission are now bickering about the confessional seal which is just one part of the bigger picture, and quite likely to be a very small part of that bigger picture at that. I think the threat the RCC and other organisations need to worry about is around the exposure of their handling or non-handling of allegations made against priests (or other staff/volunteers). But that's not an issue on which they can possibly use to their advantage, so instead we have Pell shouting SQUIRREL and diverting the debate to the sanctity of the confessional seal instead.

[ 18. November 2012, 07:37: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Well, that would be an interesting strategy if it were true. I agree the confessional is a smokescreen, but you can see from this thread and from the response in the national media that it is far more likely to stir up anti-Catholic or at least hostile sentiment than support. So I don't see your point, really.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well, that would be an interesting strategy if it were true. I agree the confessional is a smokescreen, but you can see from this thread and from the response in the national media that it is far more likely to stir up anti-Catholic or at least hostile sentiment than support. So I don't see your point, really.
I don't think it's designed to win the support of others who have made up their minds already, but to shore up the support for their position from within the faithful and get at least some of the middle ground into the "for us" side.

But overall, I think the main effect is the smokescreen, we're now all talking about the confessional seal and following that thread, instead of talking about the core issue of child abusers being protected by religious and non-religious institutions in Australia.


Of course, there is just the possibility that there are no sneaky smokescreens going on and that George Pell is just bumbling around without any cautionary counsel from somebody skilled in public relations. Notice that no other major church leaders are shooting their mouths off at this point, if there have been comments from guys like Aspinall, Jensen, Dutney etc they at least haven't been as sensational.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My recollection was correct. It was a Deputy Commissioner who said this.
Mandatory reporting exists in Victoria for police, doctors, nurses and teachers.

So the Catholics are not breaking the law here, they are dealing with the issue through their own systems (Towards Healing).

And there is nothing stopping those 620 incidents being reported to the police by those that brought the cases forward to the Catholic church if they felt the Catholic church did not act adequately.

And that article states:

quote:
But he defended the church for not reporting cases of abuse, saying Facing the Truth indicates many victims requested confidentiality.

Archbishop Hart, however, said many victims took their accusations to police as "a result of the encouragement and assistance provided to them by the church".
[Confused] [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
I'm not really clear on your position, Evensong. On other threads you have expressed a very strong anti-abuser position. But here, when the police have expressed criticism toward the Catholic Church for a lack of reporting and transparency in abuse allegations, you seem to be on the other side. Perhaps you would clarify?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] A private conversation with a minister (in supposed confidence) is different from sacramental confession in which the penitent confesses to God - not to the priest but in the presence of a priest.
Nope. I don't agree.

I am a priest wherever I am - and God hears any conversation, as it is all sacramental.

Even if it were not the case (and you were right), I'd still be duty bound to report it anyway.
No disrepect but you are not a priest (except in the royal priesthood of all the baptised). You are a minister of religion. (Again, no disrepect - I know a fairly high up Baptist minister who describes the difference between Anglican and RC orders and his own in the same way.)

Episcopally ordained priests are bound by canon law. This canon law is also part of the law of the land so the state would have to repeal/alter canon law, which it can only do through General Synod.

Part of canon law covers the seal of the confession as inviolable.

Much as I like the notion that every conversation is sacramental, diocesan guidance, as a commentary on canon law, tells priests clearly to distinguish between pastoral conversations and sacramental confession.

The latter must be distinguished by setting it apart, preferably in a church building, the confessor wearing a purple stole etc.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Meant to add that the sacrament of confession does not involve having a conversation with a priest.

The penitent makes his confession to God IN THE PRESENCE OF a priest.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] A private conversation with a minister (in supposed confidence) is different from sacramental confession in which the penitent confesses to God - not to the priest but in the presence of a priest.
Nope. I don't agree.

I am a priest wherever I am - and God hears any conversation, as it is all sacramental.

Even if it were not the case (and you were right), I'd still be duty bound to report it anyway.
No disrepect but you are not a priest (except in the royal priesthood of all the baptised). You are a minister of religion. (Again, no disrepect - I know a fairly high up Baptist minister who describes the difference between Anglican and RC orders and his own in the same way.)

Episcopally ordained priests are bound by canon law. This canon law is also part of the law of the land so the state would have to repeal/alter canon law, which it can only do through General Synod.

Part of canon law covers the seal of the confession as inviolable.

Much as I like the notion that every conversation is sacramental, diocesan guidance, as a commentary on canon law, tells priests clearly to distinguish between pastoral conversations and sacramental confession.

The latter must be distinguished by setting it apart, preferably in a church building, the confessor wearing a purple stole etc.
To use your words - no disrespect - but

1. Many "ministers" don't see any practical or theological difference between their calling and that of a priest in the Anglican Church or RCC. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called "Father" so it seems that the people I work amongst don't see a distinction either.

2. I don't care for canon law above justice.

3. I don't believe in a (neo platonic) sacred/secular divide that makes one conversation any less sacred than another. Please show me how it can be different (excluding the setting and purple robes please!).

4. Baptists don't recognise "high ups" - what your friend says is simply his persoanl opinion. I know many (it's pretty much universal IME) who see it otherwise.

5. Why does it matter what we call ourselves or what we might be called? It's hpow God and others perceive us that's important - if you have to get behind a title or position to serve God then you have a bit of a problem.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I feel that all this talk about the confessional seal is probably a smokescreen aimed at reducing the ranks of those opposed to the RCC by confusion and division, a vintage George Pell strategy. If you go back to the story linked in the OP you'll see no mention of the confessional seal, and even a claim from the Prime Minister than Pell was "taking a very co-operative attitude." So on the one hand we have this co-operative attitude, then from the same source this diversion into arguing over the confessional seal.

If that's the case, then most of the media has swallowed it hook, line and sinker - a whole lot of people who would in general all be in favour of the Royal Commission are now bickering about the confessional seal which is just one part of the bigger picture, and quite likely to be a very small part of that bigger picture at that. I think the threat the RCC and other organisations need to worry about is around the exposure of their handling or non-handling of allegations made against priests (or other staff/volunteers). But that's not an issue on which they can possibly use to their advantage, so instead we have Pell shouting SQUIRREL and diverting the debate to the sanctity of the confessional seal instead.
I'm not an apologist for Cardinal Pell - I tend to find him brusque and bullish. However, I don't buy this narrative at all. I don't think it's the Cardinal who has introduced the subject of Confession. This is the reflection on the matter of Confession from the Cardinal's press conference:

quote:
Seal of Confession

• Debate on the seal of confession is a diversion given the immense problems the community confronts.

• Church teaching is clear. The seal of confession has been explicitly inviolable for more than a thousand years.

• The law of the land is also clear. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution protects religious freedom. This separation of Church and State provides an essential protection for religious communities from Government interference in questions of belief and religious discipline and practice.

• In addition, confessional privilege is not "medieval" or "abhorrent", it is, in fact, specifically recognised in Section 127 of the 1995 Commonwealth Evidence Act. In a similar way to the protections from disclosure available for clients in respect of their communications with their lawyers, this Act protects a member of the clergy from being forced to divulge details revealed in a religious confession and even the fact that a confession has been heard.

• As Archbishop, the Cardinal does not hear the confessions of his priests (expect in an emergency), just as the Rector of a seminary is forbidden to hear the confessions of his seminarians. A priest who suspects the sacrament of penance will be abused by the penitent should not hear such a confession. Any absolution is dependent on genuine personal repentance, a commitment to suitable restitution and a firm "purpose of amendment" to sin no more.
This is available on the Archdiocese of Sydney's webpage here.

Note the first point: "Debate on the seal of confession is a diversion" - that was Pell's position.

There is great misunderstanding of the Catholic practice of Confession and people seem to think it's what is to blame for the inept handling of sex abuse cases. The truth is more shocking really - it has been things outside the confessional which were not been dealt with at all properly. In fact, if things had been known within the confessional, there would be no record, no recollection, no possibility of reporting those incidents as no-one will ever have spoken of them.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There is great misunderstanding of the Catholic practice of Confession and people seem to think it's what is to blame for the inept handling of sex abuse cases. The truth is more shocking really - it has been things outside the confessional which were not been dealt with at all properly. In fact, if things had been known within the confessional, there would be no record, no recollection, no possibility of reporting those incidents as no-one will ever have spoken of them.
Indeed. Those who see the confessional as a key issue have got it wrong. "If only priests hearing about things within the confessional had disclosed them, then everything would be alright."

That's a simplification, of course, and I don't think that people pointing fingers at the confessional deny that there are other areas that need attention. But the main issue is how the Church handled the stuff it already knew about, and how it responded to disclosures from victims.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't believe in a (neo platonic) sacred/secular divide that makes one conversation any less sacred than another. Please show me how it can be different (excluding the setting and purple robes please!).
Regardless of what YOU believe, I was stating what the C of E and RC churches believe.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists don't recognise "high ups" - what your friend says is simply his persoanl opinion. I know many (it's pretty much universal IME) who see it otherwise.
I would have thought that a former president of the Baptist Union and a regular contributor to the (late lamented) Baptist Times would be quite representative.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Baptists don't recognise "high ups" - what your friend says is simply his persoanl opinion. I know many (it's pretty much universal IME) who see it otherwise.
I would have thought that a former president of the Baptist Union and a regular contributor to the (late lamented) Baptist Times would be quite representative.
How do you know you aren't talking to someone who could claim the same qualifications?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't believe in a (neo platonic) sacred/secular divide that makes one conversation any less sacred than another. Please show me how it can be different (excluding the setting and purple robes please!).
Regardless of what YOU believe, I was stating what the C of E and RC churches believe.
I don't know much about the RCC but having spent many years in the CofE, I'm not sure that particular belief is as widespread as you think it is. It may be amongst the more sacramentally minded churches in the CofE but IME not amongst the ones I frequented or by many of the priests I know.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
I think this may be a bit of a red herring as my understanding is that most of the crimes reported in the RC seem to involve the person running the Confessional Box rather than the Penitent, or have I missed something. I'm not sure many Child Abusers ever confess voluntarily to anyone, given the punishment which could be visited upon them!!

Can one of you Statistics people tell me if i have swallowed a Stereotype here?
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
BEATMENANCE

You are on the right track. However one of the problems that RC Bishops have is that they do not have control over many of the individual orders represented in their Diocese who are under the control of Rome or other overseas headquarters.

So mandated training in Child Protection and Creating Safe Ministries, even in the two Australian Diocese who have joined the national program of the National Council of Churches, will not reach all participants in children's work or ministry within the RC's.

Personally I believe that parish based awareness training is essential to enable the laity to support their clergy, teachers etc in good practice and identify potential for abuse.

New South Wales has mandatory reporting for clergy and laity involved in scripture and any work with children. However a lack of widespread training and awareness within the RC's appears to be a weak link which allows "Father to know best" to the detriment of the Gospel message for all our denominations.

For statistics the Victorian Commission is throwing up horrifying police data - such as the 620 cases since 1996 which were not notified.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I feel cynical about this whole issue in Australia as a lot of what is going on is politically motivated. The leader of the opposition is a practicing Roman Catholic while the Prime Minister is an outspoken atheist. There is a great deal of vitriol directed in the media and on social websites against churches, particularly RC and in fact all Christians. Most of it is bigoted and ill informed. Statistics show that children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their own family than any church or other organisational member. The RC church is no greater perpetrator than other community groups. Although I am not a Catholic, I have found most priests to be caring and dedicated in their profession and fear that this campaign seeks to tar all of them with the same accusations of paedophilia. In relation to the confessional, I doubt in view of the enforced revealing of confidences, if perpetrators will then go and tell anyone of their crimes any more. Anyhow, who is going to be listening in to what is being said to the priest. Will the confessional be wired? There are other groups who claim privilege to keep information secret eg lawyers, so will there be the same rules for all?
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
There is a great deal of vitriol directed in the media and on social websites against churches ...[snip]... Most of it is bigoted and ill informed.
Now there's a surprise.

More genuinely, now, do not the "other groups" you speak of a bit later in your post, bib, ascribe to the three-point-exception* confidentiality clause? I'm aware that counsellors and psychs and things maintain their client's confidence unless danger to their client, another person, or property is disclosed. This may not be the case for lawyers and doctors, etc, though... Do you know?

*Not a technical term, just so we're all cleaning the same crapper.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Statistics show that children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their own family than any church or other organisational member.
Agreed.

quote:
The RC church is no greater perpetrator than other community groups.
Not agreed. Quite a lot of the statistical reporting seems to be indicating that the RC church is markedly overrepresented, within the category of abuse by non-family members.
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
The most recent stats that I have show that at least 75% of confirmed abuse ( sexual, neglect, emotional,physical) of children in Australia is within the family circle. Ten percent includes stepparents, neighbours, friends and only 5 percent is others including strangers and teachers, clergy, church workers etc.

However the Victorian police stats show the church linked abuse is 6 - 1 in "favour" of the RC's. So they have to fess up, be open to change and clean up their act. And get a new front person other than Archbishop Pell who takes advice from others, for the sake of all the churches and the spread of the Gospel.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My recollection was correct. It was a Deputy Commissioner who said this.
Mandatory reporting exists in Victoria for police, doctors, nurses and teachers.

So the Catholics are not breaking the law here, they are dealing with the issue through their own systems (Towards Healing).

And there is nothing stopping those 620 incidents being reported to the police by those that brought the cases forward to the Catholic church if they felt the Catholic church did not act adequately.

And that article states:

quote:
But he defended the church for not reporting cases of abuse, saying Facing the Truth indicates many victims requested confidentiality.

Archbishop Hart, however, said many victims took their accusations to police as "a result of the encouragement and assistance provided to them by the church".
[Confused] [Paranoid]
So Evensong, does the Roman Catholic church have no moral obligation to report crimes of which it is aware, to the Police?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
The RC church is no greater perpetrator than other community groups.
Not agreed. Quite a lot of the statistical reporting seems to be indicating that the RC church is markedly overrepresented, within the category of abuse by non-family members.
But have those statistics been adjusted for the over representation of the Catholic church when it comes to being providers of child services (e.g. schools)? If you put all protestant and orthodox denominations together then double that number you get the size of the Catholic Church. It's frickin huge.

My understanding is that there is no evidence that the Catholic church abuses more than the standard population and other denominations and institutions.

How they have dealt with it compared to other institutions and denominations may be another matter.
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
Sorry to double post but I'm on the road and won't be in satellite contact for a while when I move on.

The effect of abusing priests on parishioners in general cannot be over estimated. In Newcastle Australia I know of a family where three priests, the one who married the couple and the two who baptised their first two children were all charged with henious child sexual abuse. This abuse in one case included interfering with boys who were under dental anaethetic! While one did get off on a technicality , despite the evidence of the other perpetrators, the other two were jailed.

The victims included the children and their families, but also christian families, like this one, who had trusted their local priests and who no longer attend church.

The public airing of such stories will be damaging and hurtful for the RC's and many of us fear the Vatican and Cardinal Pell will not allow the many voices of reason within the RC's to florish.

Pray for them all.

[Votive] [Votive] [Votive]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
The RC church is no greater perpetrator than other community groups.
Not agreed. Quite a lot of the statistical reporting seems to be indicating that the RC church is markedly overrepresented, within the category of abuse by non-family members.
But have those statistics been adjusted for the over representation of the Catholic church when it comes to being providers of child services (e.g. schools)? If you put all protestant and orthodox denominations together then double that number you get the size of the Catholic Church. It's frickin huge.
That's a good question, and it's not always clear from the articles I've seen to what extent that's taken into account. Certainly, there are a huge number of areas where statistics based on absolute numbers and statistics based on rates can give completely different impressions. (Deaths and fires in the course of the housing insulation scheme is a superb example of this.)

And I think you would have to distinguish between cases that happen in a school context from cases that happen in a parish context. I suspect you're right in saying that there are a lot more Catholic schools than there are schools of other denominations. But there are also examples of abuse happening outside that, in areas where the Catholic church doesn't have an emphasis over and above other churches.

Sounds like a good topic for investigation by the commission, to be honest.

PS In terms of how the church has dealt with it, one observation I saw today may be very pertinent and also does incline me to still think that the RCC might be overrepresented.

The observation was that, even in more recent times, the RCC was inclined to keep a discovered pedophile within the church and attempt treatment, whereas other denominations would kick them out.

Now of course, there are all sorts of comments to make about BOTH of those strategies. But it does mean that a person from another denomination would be less likely to continue to rack up further victims while still on the church's books.

[ 19. November 2012, 07:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
My point is that the issue in the Catholic church seems to overwhelmingly involve Priests. The proportion compared to other groups is not as important as these being committed by a trusted figure who should know better.

It would be the same if we were to suddenly find hundreds of GPs (Doctors for those outside the UK), Solicitors or Members of Parliament, convicted of child sex crimes - but we havent.

Wikipedia provides a detailed page on the CONVICTED ( no hearsay here Mr Host ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

Unless these guys confessed to God in the presence of other priests (making the distinction to please Leo) then the Confessional aspect is largely a red herring.

These seem to have been found out by witness statements from victims - no confessing involved - to anyone.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
So Evensong, does the Roman Catholic church have no moral obligation to report crimes of which it is aware, to the Police?
Personally I'm rather surprised that not all states have mandatory reporting for all professionals and all institutions . I think all should.

I'm curious as to why victims do not go straight to police tho if they know the church will not report these crimes. Perhaps it is a confidentiality thing? The victims don't want anyone to know...?

As for the not reporting thing....that cleric said that in some cases the victims were encouraged to report to the police. That doesn't square well with what the police lawyer said.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
So Evensong, does the Roman Catholic church have no moral obligation to report crimes of which it is aware, to the Police?
Personally I'm rather surprised that not all states have mandatory reporting for all professionals and all institutions . I think all should.

I'm curious as to why victims do not go straight to police tho if they know the church will not report these crimes. Perhaps it is a confidentiality thing? The victims don't want anyone to know...?

As for the not reporting thing....that cleric said that in some cases the victims were encouraged to report to the police. That doesn't square well with what the police lawyer said.
You haven't answered the question Evensong, does the RC church have a moral obligation to report crimes when it is aware of them?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
A further observation: when it comes to schools, there's a ready comparator available in the form of the government system.

I'm aware of individual abuse cases in the government school system, but there isn't anything like the same perception of an institutional problem. What are the numbers? The Catholic system might be much larger than the other Christian schools, but is certainly not larger than the government-run schools.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
The observation was that, even in more recent times, the RCC was inclined to keep a discovered pedophile within the church and attempt treatment, whereas other denominations would kick them out.
What treatment was that exactly?
My understanding seems to be that the strategy was 'A new life in a new town'. I can see this making sense when you are dealing with a repentant sinner who has moved on and needs a new start (i have known it being done with new christians with criminal connections who need to be kept away from their old croney and haunts) , but i would suggest that this kind of sin requires a lot more support, and i would say ,thereputic help, and secrecy is about the WORST strategy of the lot as it increases the likelihood of continuing to offend.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sorry, I don't have the article to hand now, it was in the press clippings at work. Will try to remember to look again tomorrow.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You haven't answered the question Evensong, does the RC church have a moral obligation to report crimes when it is aware of them?
As opposed to a child care centre, orphanage, scouts group or other institutions you mean?

[ 19. November 2012, 08:23: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You haven't answered the question Evensong, does the RC church have a moral obligation to report crimes when it is aware of them?
As opposed to a child care centre, orphanage, scouts group or other institutions you mean?
No, not as opposed to any other institution, just as the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Why are you singling them out?

Don't you think everyone has a moral obligation to report abuse?

Which raises an interesting question......if mandatory reporting was required of everybody, including family and friends and neighbours, what would happen?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
That situation, Evensong, would mean that many are convicted on hearsay alone. I believe the Chinese called that sort of thing re-education, and the Russians sent people off to populate Siberia.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why are you singling them out?

Don't you think everyone has a moral obligation to report abuse?

Which raises an interesting question......if mandatory reporting was required of everybody, including family and friends and neighbours, what would happen?
I wasn't singling them out, "they" are the subject of this thread! Of course I think everybody has a moral oblication to report abuse but you appear to be arguing the opposite.


quote:
Originally posted by Evensong

Mandatory reporting exists in Victoria for police, doctors, nurses and teachers.

So the Catholics are not breaking the law here, they are dealing with the issue through their own systems (Towards Healing).

And there is nothing stopping those 620 incidents being reported to the police by those that brought the cases forward to the Catholic church if they felt the Catholic church did not act adequately.

And that article states:

quote:
But he defended the church for not reporting cases of abuse, saying Facing the Truth indicates many victims requested confidentiality.

Archbishop Hart, however, said many victims took their accusations to police as "a result of the encouragement and assistance provided to them by the church".
implies that you believe the church is not doing anything wrong by failing to report child abuse because it is not legally mandated to report abuse and it is "dealing" with this through its own processes plus you seem to be putting the onus back on the victim to report the crime.

So which is it Evensong, reporting is only required when it is mandataory and in any case should be done by the victim or

quote:
everyone has a moral obligation to report abuse?
Your point about mandatory reporting is a furphy. First of all, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between a moral and a legal obligation. Friends, nieighbouts etc DO have a moral obligation, o report instances when they believe children are in danger but they are not subject to mandatory reporting laws.

Secondly and this is important, we're not talking about a vague suscpicion of wrong doing or heresay, the RC has, in many instances, conducted investigations which have led them to conclude their is sufficient evidence to warrant substantial payouts to victims and in other instances there have been confessions by the Priest but the Church has still failed to report this to the Police.

[ 19. November 2012, 09:40: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
hearsay, not heresay..... there not their.. shocking.. blaming sleep deprivation,

[ 19. November 2012, 09:44: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I wasn't singling them out, "they" are the subject of this thread!
Oh right. Sorry. I thought it was about the Royal commission.

And yes, I do believe everyone has the moral obligation to report abuse.

An interesting conflict might arise however if the victim does not want the abuse reported to the police.

Who do you side with? The victim? Even if means their perpetrator might go on to abuse others?

Fuuuuuuuck......what a nightmare.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
That situation, Evensong, would mean that many are convicted on hearsay alone. I believe the Chinese called that sort of thing re-education, and the Russians sent people off to populate Siberia.
Not so. Hearsay is where it begins. Doctors, teachers, social workers ( who have to mandatorially report) bring the hearsay to the police and they investigate. Convictions come on sufficient evidence.

If the vast majority of abuse occurs in the home, you'd be hitting the nail where it really hurt if you made reporting mandatory for all.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I agree about those mandated to report. As a scout leader, I've made more than a few reports myself.

I don't know if I would trust friends and neighbours though. Truly.

And there's still the spectre of the examples of the Russian and Chinese authorities.

[ 19. November 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: PeteC ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I wasn't singling them out, "they" are the subject of this thread!
Oh right. Sorry. I thought it was about the Royal commission.

And yes, I do believe everyone has the moral obligation to report abuse.

An interesting conflict might arise however if the victim does not want the abuse reported to the police.

Who do you side with? The victim? Even if means their perpetrator might go on to abuse others?

Fuuuuuuuck......what a nightmare.
Not at all. If the victim is a child, as I see it the duty is clear. You have no choice, morally, but to report the allegation to the police. That is my position, even if I empathise when other professionals with far more experience than me (e.g. Doctors) may elect otherwise.
I have to agree with Evensong on this, Pete. Report, and let the police do the investigating. If there is an accusation, let it be tested. Medically, if possible. Just because an allegation is made (or, as is sometimes the case, an adult misinterprets an innocent statement by a child) doesn't mean abuse has occurred. But that is not for me to say, but the justice system to assess.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I am not a great believer, despite being a avid socialist, in shuffling everything off to the Nanny State. Nanny is chronically short staffed and overworked.

And I also dispute that no harm will be done if we wait for the system to investigate. That is bollocks. I have seen people's lives destroyed because of false accusation even if that person is later "cleared". The clearance never seems to be as broadcast as the accusation and follows the person falsely accused around like a black shadow for the rest of their lives.

Sort of like forced moves to the countryside. Or to the Gulag ... Posthumous rehabilitation isn't worth a pot of warm pee.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I wasn't singling them out, "they" are the subject of this thread!
Oh right. Sorry. I thought it was about the Royal commission.

No need for apologies my dear, I'm glad it's clear to you now, as the thread title and opening post make clear it is about the specific issue of the Royal Commission AND the confessional seal of the Roman Catholic church which does single out the RC church as the topic of thread.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
PeteC: Well said. I think I may have over simplified, but you are right.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
To further expand on Pete's point, I am sitting here in one of the more green-liberal (small 'l') suburbs in my hometown. The waitress, who obviously knows one of the nearby couples, was discussing a past stint of jury duty, involving the importation of child pornography. Without knowing any of the facts of the case at all, the female of the couple said, loud enough for anyone else to hear, 'Just lock him up! Why can't you just lock him up?'
If this conversational excerpt strikes you as unusual, you are living somewhere I don't know about. [Projectile]
The court of public opinion is a big, big problem with this issue and is likely to continue to interfere with the process of discovering the truth.
 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
Don't Anglican priests also consider the seal of the confessional to be inviolable?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
Don't Anglican priests also consider the seal of the confessional to be inviolable?
The Primate's statement suggests that it would not be. It is almost certainly not going to be an issue beyond giving the press something to sound concerned and indignant about. I'f be very surprised if anyone had confessed any activity amounting to child sexual abuse (or indeed any other criminal offence) to a priest over the last 50 or more years.

And what DK said, in spades.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The court of public opinion is a big, big problem with this issue and is likely to continue to interfere with the process of discovering the truth.
Yep.

My mother, by the way, still vividly remembers just how many people 'knew' that Lindy Chamberlain was guilty of murdering her infant daughter.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Not sure if this case even made the radar over your way, orfeo, but I know people who are convinced that Lloyd Rayney was guilty.
Story here for those with not a clue what I am talking about.
Off topic, but the point is, as PeteC pointed out, sometimes the mud sticks. And there is no nastier shit to sling around than sexual abuse allegations.
Still - I think I would err on the side of reporting allegations. However, it is something I would do with a very heavy heart, of course for the child, but also in anticipation of the utter chaos that would explode in the aftermath.

BTW: I have no idea whether Rayney did it or not. And I know that being found not guilty may not equate to actual innocence. But the number of people here in WA who just know he did it - perhaps in some kind of paranormal sense, as the evidence won't get you there. People are nutso.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Here reports of concerns about children go to Social Services (Care, technically, but that's less clear) and in training we were told to report anything because it might add up with other comments to add to concerns, or may be an isolated incident which would be ignored.

But ... social care tend to go and talk to the family saying they've had a report from the school or the playgroup or the neighbour. So schools tend to have someone in school to collate all reports, and talk to the family before they talk to social care - because the school still has to teach those pupils.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Thought it was worth posting this here as it comes from the royal commission context.

Only the first couple of paragraphs of this story are available for free online, but they have the gist of it.

Which is, the Anglican diocese of Brisbane has said that the royal commission needs to look at insurance companies, because in some cases the church has WANTED to apologise and settle a case and been told no by their insurers.

There are different forms of secrecy, not just the confessional...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, and perhaps even more directly pertinent to this thread, the ACTUAL head of the nation's catholic bishops supports mandatory reporting.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
That's interesting, orfeo - I was surprised by that. But he sys nothing about the confessional seal being violable in such cases, and I'd be prepared to bet a dingo's kidney that he doesn't support that.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
I observed the same thing, Chesterbelloc. However, this seems very positive to me, and as others have pointed out how the church deals with victims (particularly currently vulnerable victims) is more important than the seal issue.

[ 27. November 2012, 15:14: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
At last! THIS looks Solomonic: 'Archbishop Hart also called for mandatory reporting by priests of suspected cases of child abuse'. One can see how this can be done EASILY and keep the letter of canon law.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0