|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Seal of the Confessional
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Thinking about sacraments and reading the discussion has led me to think about confession.
Nowadays counsellors have to disclose any information they may, albeit inadvertently, receive about terrorism, child abuse...
Does this or should it apply also to confession?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Nowadays counsellors have to disclose any information they may, albeit inadvertently, receive about terrorism, child abuse...
Depends on what you mean by "counselors". For instance, someone receiving legal counsel will typically expect such communications to be covered by attorney-client privilege.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
The ethical rules regarding attorney client communications generally provide certain exceptions. You may reveal information to prevent reasonably certain death or bodily harm, and in a few other circumstances.
My favorite hypo, just because it freaks me out, is the situation where the client leads the attorney to the dead body. Should the attorney say something? Does it matter if the client obviously had a reason to kill this person and is not likely to kill again, as opposed to if the client indicates that he will be adding to the collection if he is not caught?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I believe legal counsel have responsibility to report child abuse just like anyone else, with the legal privilege of client-solicitor confidentiality not applying in many jurisdictions. And of course anyone anywhere should have full obligation and responsibility to report such things. Priests, ministers, lawyers, medical people.
In Canada, a priest might need to violate the law to retain knowledge of child abuse and not inform Child Protection or police or both as far as I know. I would tend to want the priest to be more thoughtful than just refusing to disclose because it was said in official confession with the seal of the confessional.
How about penance involving the penitent talking to the police with the priest going along for support? And maybe with a time frame of "let's go right now". Refusal to follow through would necessarily mean no absolution and the conversation necessarily continuing also right now. Someone trained well in pastoral care would never need to have the issues crystallized so starkly that penitent and priest are now arguing, and doing the right thing might involve a fairly lengthy penitential discussion of hours or even days until the correct conclusion is reached by the penitent to report on him or herself with the priest supporting.
I'm not making this up out of whole cloth. I am aware that such things occur in actuality.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I believe legal counsel have responsibility to report child abuse just like anyone else, with the legal privilege of client-solicitor confidentiality not applying in many jurisdictions. And of course anyone anywhere should have full obligation and responsibility to report such things. Priests, ministers, lawyers, medical people.
Except that most jurisdictions don't recognize misprision of felony as a criminal offense any more, except in the case of individuals with a specific (usually professional) responsibility to report offenses. So "anyone anywhere" doesn't "have full obligation and responsibility to report such things", at least not in the legally actionable sense of "obligation and responsibility".
Confidentiality and privilege aren't just some quaint custom held over from earlier times. They're maintained for specific professions because society holds that the functioning of those professions are critical to social well-being and that not extending privilege will severely hamper their ability to work. For instance, most Western legal systems hold that the accused (or even those liable to be accused) have both a right to competent legal counsel and a right against self-incrimination. There doesn't seem to be any way accommodate either of these rights if a person's legal counsel is obligated to be an informant against his clients.
Medical privilege exists for similar reasons. The idea that seeing a doctor could lead to the patient being the subject of idle gossip or being reported to law enforcement would discourage many from seeking medical assistance in a timely manner, and society has held that a competently functioning medical system is more important than gossip or giving the police a convenient short-cut.
Bringing it back to the OP, the question then becomes whether privilege between clergy and confessor (confessee?) falls into a similar situation. Not privileging such communications would doubtless be discouraging in the same way lack of privilege would discourage anyone from exercising their right to legal counsel, so it fits in that regard. The only other question is whether confession fulfills a socially valuable function, like allowing citizens to exercise their legal rights or having a functional medical system. I'm not seeing it, but if I were a believer I might have more insight on the matter.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The legal issues must be separated from the issues of a child in danger, and we need to separate out the issue of current risk from past, and also be cognizant that abuse being in the past as said by a person is not necessarily accurate. The social value of lawyers might be another thread ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
General rule of thumb: people don't go off to consult a lawyer, doctor, mental health professional, priest etc to freely disclose, they are doing it from a perception of risk, or someone put them up to it. At least that's the wisdom from those who do therapy with
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
I suppose that if priests were legally obliged to report any confessions of the abuse of children to authorities, then penitents would be unlikely to confess this sin. (And would not therefore be obliged to confess it, canonically, since the form of the sacrament had been tampered with by the state.)
Fortunately, most confessors would gladly follow S. John Nepomucene to his watery death in the Moldau rather than break the seal, so such legislation would be essentially meaningless.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.
I don't understand this, sorry.
What do you mean by trumps other laws?
What does it say about disclosure?
anyone help by unpacking what it means? (And I post as a member of the Church of England!)
[ 24. April 2013, 22:35: Message edited by: Percy B ]
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.
I don't understand this, sorry.
What do you mean by trumps other laws?
What does it say about disclosure?
anyone help by unpacking what it means? (And I post as a member of the Church of England!)
I do not think that canon law trumps civil or criminal law. There are lawyers about who can speak to this better than I, it being an English matter, but I would think that a conflict of law gets resolved in appeal. I would not count on canon law to keep me out of cellblock B.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.
I don't understand this, sorry.
What do you mean by trumps other laws?
What does it say about disclosure?
anyone help by unpacking what it means? (And I post as a member of the Church of England!)
quote:
It is unlawful to require a person to give evidence if the giving of such evidence requires that person to break a law of the land. Because the proviso to Canon 113 of the 1603 Canons is unrepealed, it has equivalent status with the law of the land. So to ask a priest to break the seal is unlawful.
From ‘Protecting All God’s Children’ 3rd edn. C of E policy
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
But a serial child abuser confesses - think Jimmy Saville - what does priest do? What does the law require?
This then is not about giving evidence, but reporting concern to protect children.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
If anyone is party to any evidence that amounts to a disclosure they are bound by law to declare it. Don't worry about ancient laws from 1603, think of the child you are bound to protect. Think too of those who have been affected (and their legal teams) if it becomes clear that you have failed to pass such things on
Which side would God have you come down on, bearing in mind Jesus' words about causing
children to stumble and millstones around necks?
Please don't think either that your bishop, denomination whatever will protect and support you if you don't disclose. they won't - they'll be dumping on you too to keep it all off them.
I would have and have had no compunction in passing such information on to the authorities concerned. When the conversations took a certain turn I indicated that any disclosures that related to offences under the law would have to be referred if in my opinion it was necessary.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Depending on the state, in US law there is an assumption of privilege in the confessional. You may not like that, and you may believe it ought to be otherwise, but that's the way it is.
If priests were prepared to report offenders (or suspected offenders) based on what was heard in the confessional, hardly anyone would ever go to confession.
The priest does have the option of withholding absolution conditional on the penitent turning himself in to the authorities, but I have no idea how well this has ever worked, and I'm not sure that lets the priest off the hook as far as keeping the privileged information to himself goes.
Is there some principle in English jurisprudence by which the force of a law decreases as its age increases?
[ 25. April 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
But the very idea of confessional seal and the absolute privilege of it (if it is true) is frankly mostly a completely spurious issue and fails to take into account more than simple minded legalistic ideas. We should expect more problem solving and loving responses.
I think there must be some priests and ministers intelligent enough to work through the terrible things people at risk to harm others such that they do not personally violate the confessionaL, but properly work through with the confessing person such that the risk is handled properly, i.e., safety plans are put in place, children and others at potential risk are protected. Is it too much to ask, that clergy do a little thinking?
I should think that a parent of a child abused after the confessor was forgiven by a simple-minded, rigid "the seal of the confessional is my idol" type of clergy could be sued, if it could be shown that the priest was negligent by not doing as a reasonable person would do: keep the seal of confessional and don't end the confession process until issues are addressed. The church too.
We need to expect better from professional clergy than adherence to antiquated ideas that force principles to compete with the welfare of others. I believe that this is a false dichotomy. Can't you do both?: retain confessional sanctity AND deal responsibly with the risks to living human beings, particularly 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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But the very idea of confessional seal and the absolute privilege of it (if it is true) is frankly mostly a completely spurious issue and fails to take into account more than simple minded legalistic ideas. We should expect more problem solving and loving responses.
I think there must be some priests and ministers intelligent enough to work through the terrible things people at risk to harm others such that they do not personally violate the confessionaL, but properly work through with the confessing person such that the risk is handled properly, i.e., safety plans are put in place, children and others at potential risk are protected. Is it too much to ask, that clergy do a little thinking?
Well, of course. No confessor that I know would allow a child molester to confess his sins, be given penance, and then walk out of the booth absolved without attempting to get him to surrender to an appropriate authority.
But priests don't always have that much control over the situation. As I mention above, you can withhold absolution from the penitent pending evidence of true repentance (such as coming with you to the police station to confess his crimes), but there's no way of compelling him to do so--and that's the sole lever you really possess. Threaten him with going to the cops, and you've just made a lie of the confessional.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, you do your damndest to get the person to turn themselves in, or failing that, to withhold absolution on grounds of impenitence and meanwhile keep after the person. Failing all else there's the option of trying to steer events in a way that causes the issue to surface outside the confessional ("maybe this year just for kicks we should have someone do a professional audit of the church books, what do you think, council?".... oh dear me, what an unexpected result") Though that's getting a bit bendy with privileged knowledge. You do the best you can to keep faith with all your obligations.
We once had the astonishing and frustrating situation of being falsely accused of some very nasty behavior and being totally unable to clear ourselves in an effective way, because to do so would require disclosing information given by our accuser under the seal of confession. Meh, what a nightmare that was. And the individual grinning away knowing he had us in a cleft stick.
Since then we make it clear that if the confesser goes on to abuse the confidentiality of confession himself ( eg by lying publicly about it), that will automatically free us to tell the truth.
[ 26. April 2013, 04:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If anyone is party to any evidence that amounts to a disclosure they are bound by law to declare it. Don't worry about ancient laws from 1603, think of the child you are bound to protect. Think too of those who have been affected (and their legal teams) if it becomes clear that you have failed to pass such things on
Which side would God have you come down on, bearing in mind Jesus' words about causing
children to stumble and millstones around necks?
Exactly.
Childen's safety now trumps an adults supposed spiritual state every time.
I fail to see why the 'sanctity' of the confessional comes first.
If there is a conflict between the two there should be no contest.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
A question:
How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Exactly.
Childen's safety now trumps an adults supposed spiritual state every time.
I fail to see why the 'sanctity' of the confessional comes first.
If there is a conflict between the two there should be no contest.
I suppose my worry would be that, if it becomes widely known that you confession is only as confidential as the Priest may decide in any given situation, it will prevent people from confessing, even people who could have been persuaded, with time, to hand themselves in. So you get a situation where the children are no safer than they were because the Priest never discovers the risk anyway, and the usage of confession is impaired because those who need it most are wary of being completely honest.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]So you get a situation where the children are no safer than they were because the Priest never discovers the risk anyway, and the usage of confession is impaired because those who need it most are wary of being completely honest.
I can see the sense (to an extent) or your argument but unfortunately our chums in the RCC have given it all the worst possible example by protecting child molesters and bombers over the years.
If ou're wary about being honest - what have you got to hide?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:
How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?
The whole practice needs to be approached with caution -- confession can be a power thing from either angle.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]
1. No confessor that I know would allow a child molester to confess his sins, be given penance, and then walk out of the booth absolved without attempting to get him to surrender to an appropriate authority.
2. Threaten him with going to the cops, and you've just made a lie of the confessional.
1. You may not know one but there are clrearly some who have done just that in the RCC.
2 No you haven't - you may well have saved him (or her) by doing it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:
How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?
I suspect for the first question, none. I suspect all those who are saying that the seal should be ignored either aren't clergy or belong to churches or traditions within them that don't practice confession in that way.
A few thoughts:-
1. Presumably a priest in a church that does practice confession in this way would fear eternal damnation if they broke the seal? Which fear should prevail, fear of God or fear of the state?
2. Even for those that don't have it, if a conscience stricken 16 year old boy confessed to having committed fornication with a 15 year old girl, would you really turn him in to the police or the child protection authorities?
3. If a conscience stricken victim confessed to you a sin which strongly implied they had been molested, obviously you'd encourage them not to feel it was their fault. But if they divulged the name of the molester, or any details that might assist identifying them, would it be breaking the victim's seal to pass that information on? Is the seal general or specific to the confessor? Also, does it require the confessor's agreement? Or do you think you should wade in irrespective of what the victim feels about it?
4. Is child abuse different from all other crimes? If so what makes it so? What would you feel about someone who confessed to money-laundering? Murder? treason? drug dealing? drug using? Or according to Margaret Hodge, tax avoidance?
5. Is each priest or minister entitled to have his or her own personal list of sins that they think in the public interest should not be under seal, and act on it?
6. If you think you should tell the state about some (or even all) crimes, why should you not feel obliged to tell the betrayed spouse if someone confesses to you they are committing adultery?
7. Do many people who commit these sort of really bad sins actually go to confession? Obviously we can't ask them to break the seal, but presumably we have shipmates who do their stint in the box? Do these sort of questions actually arise very often?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]So you get a situation where the children are no safer than they were because the Priest never discovers the risk anyway, and the usage of confession is impaired because those who need it most are wary of being completely honest.
I can see the sense (to an extent) or your argument but unfortunately our chums in the RCC have given it all the worst possible example by protecting child molesters and bombers over the years.
But the RCC wasn't just refusing to break the seal of the confessional - it was refusing to act on allegations and information it had received outside the confessional, and which it had no reason not to disclose.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:
How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?
I suspect for the first question, none. I suspect all those who are saying that the seal should be ignored either aren't clergy or belong to churches or traditions within them that don't practice confession in that way.
This is the essential point, I think. If your theology doesn't include penance as a sacrament, with the theology that implies, at least in the cases of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and (to an extent) Anglicanism, then the "sanctity of the confessional" is at best, something that might be generally useful, but can sometimes be put aside for a greater good, or, at worst, a ridiculous idea that serves only to shield people from the appropriate justice of the state.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, you do your damndest to get the person to turn themselves in, or failing that, to withhold absolution on grounds of impenitence and meanwhile keep after the person.
Thank-you! It is this simple thing that just made me cross and bang my head.
quote:
Lamb Chopped:
Since then we make it clear that if the confesser goes on to abuse the confidentiality of confession himself ( eg by lying publicly about it), that will automatically free us to tell the truth.
I would have thought this was pretty well automatic, at least to the point of making the point that the information as provided by the person is inaccurate. Goodness sakes what an awful spot to be in.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
Our Child Protection Policy in my CofE Church says that before any of our priests hear confession for the first time, they are first required to tell the person in question that while confidentiality is to be expected in most matters, there are things that they may be required by policy and law to report to the appropriate authorities. We say this, not to scare them, but so that they are aware that we do not believe the seal of the confession to be absolute, and that they cannot complain that there was an expectation of absolute confidentiality in making their confession.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:
How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?
I suspect for the first question, none. I suspect all those who are saying that the seal should be ignored either aren't clergy or belong to churches or traditions within them that don't practice confession in that way.
This is the essential point, I think. If your theology doesn't include penance as a sacrament, with the theology that implies, at least in the cases of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and (to an extent) Anglicanism, then the "sanctity of the confessional" is at best, something that might be generally useful, but can sometimes be put aside for a greater good, or, at worst, a ridiculous idea that serves only to shield people from the appropriate justice of the state.
It might be useful to remind ourselves that, in many places throughout history (and now), that the appropriate justice of the state is not something in which one would wish to be involved. A list of countries is available upon application.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be useful to remind ourselves that, in many places throughout history (and now), that the appropriate justice of the state is not something in which one would wish to be involved. A list of countries is available upon application.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
This is something that should be repeated again, and Again and AGAIN.
Where would our current obsession with money laundering have stood with Jews trying to get their life savings out of Nazi Germany, Ugandan Asians trying to save something of their wrecked businesses from Amin's Uganda, or Syrians trying to escape either side in the Syrian civil war now?
It is good and prudent to have a cautious distrust even of fairly worthy states such as one's own, yet alone foreign ones.
[ 27. April 2013, 06:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably a priest in a church that does practice confession in this way would fear eternal damnation if they broke the seal? Which fear should prevail, fear of God or fear of the state?
Neither.
Care for the children should prevail.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I thought to myself a soundbite -- 'If the law is broken then the seal of the Confession should be broken'.
I thought some more . If I was having a drink with a mate who bragged about doing 120mph on the motorway would I ,the next day , report the matter to the police ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
Perhaps not. But if he had a 3 year old in the back seat at the time, definitely.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The three year old could be in someone else's car. Or on the back of a pushbike.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be useful to remind ourselves that, in many places throughout history (and now), that the appropriate justice of the state is not something in which one would wish to be involved. A list of countries is available upon application.
This is something that should be repeated again, and Again and AGAIN.
Where would our current obsession with money laundering have stood with Jews trying to get their life savings out of Nazi Germany, Ugandan Asians trying to save something of their wrecked businesses from Amin's Uganda, or Syrians trying to escape either side in the Syrian civil war now?
It is good and prudent to have a cautious distrust even of fairly worthy states such as one's own, yet alone foreign ones.
Not complicated. People are worth pushing the boundaries about confidentiality about, things aren't. The government and state issues are a red herring and distraction when considering the individual who's at risk for harming another person directly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Our Child Protection Policy in my CofE Church says that before any of our priests hear confession for the first time, they are first required to tell the person in question that while confidentiality is to be expected in most matters, there are things that they may be required by policy and law to report to the appropriate authorities. We say this, not to scare them, but so that they are aware that we do not believe the seal of the confession to be absolute, and that they cannot complain that there was an expectation of absolute confidentiality in making their confession.
Is this a parish policy, a diocesan policy, or a Church of England policy?
Are possible penitents provided with a list of offenses up front? If so, who created the list?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Enoch
Just a couple of comments about the examples your gave.
First, should a confessor turn in a 16 year old boy for having fornication with a 15 year old girl?
Some states would not consider this statutory rape because the age of consent is 14, or if it is 16 there is an exception if the partners are only a couple of years apart.
Second, if a victim names his/her molester should you turn the molester in. There is a major problem here. While a victim names the molester it still only amounts to hearsay. You do not have first hand knowledge and probably will not have corroborating evidence. The most you can do is to encourage the victim to go to the authorities with his/her story and offer continuing support for him/her. I would also make a referral to a person that specializes counseling victims of sexual abuse.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably a priest in a church that does practice confession in this way would fear eternal damnation if they broke the seal? Which fear should prevail, fear of God or fear of the state?
Neither.
Care for the children should prevail.
I'd fear eternal damnation if I didn't break it on such an issue - and I have done so in the past. If that means I spend eternity in a Christless eternity then so be it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
[QUOTE]This is the essential point, I think. If your theology doesn't include penance as a sacrament, with the theology that implies, at least in the cases of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and (to an extent) Anglicanism, then the "sanctity of the confessional" is at best, something that might be generally useful, but can sometimes be put aside for a greater good, or, at worst, a ridiculous idea that serves only to shield people from the appropriate justice of the state.
OK then for your "penance" here - I'm reporting you to the authrotities and your penance is dealing with the consequences of that.
For those who favour and who no doubt practice a "confidential confessional" would it be any different if your children/family/close freinds were involved in what the confessee alleges?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Second, if a victim names his/her molester should you turn the molester in. There is a major problem here. While a victim names the molester it still only amounts to hearsay. You do not have first hand knowledge and probably will not have corroborating evidence. The most you can do is to encourage the victim to go to the authorities with his/her story and offer continuing support for him/her. I would also make a referral to a person that specializes counseling victims of sexual abuse.
If you have reasonable cause to believe this is true, then yes in the UK you should report it as a disclosure. The accuracy of it all is for someone else to discover.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
There are quite a few issue here.FWIW I am not Catholic and have no experience of confession.
First question is whether this is principle based in the sense that irrespective of whether removing the seal leads to fewer offences, or is it only to be justified on pragmatic grounds?
If it is on pragmatic grounds how would this be argued ? There's a lot of facts that I would not even care to guess at, like:
What is the probability that people would still confess knowing they would be reported? Low one would think. Would sucha confession stand up if later denied?
What is the probability of a priest succeeding in getting someone to desist? If this is higher than the first number then the overall effect would be perverse.
I can't see the RCCchanging policy and don't think they should.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Enoch
Just a couple of comments about the examples your gave.
First, should a confessor turn in a 16 year old boy for having fornication with a 15 year old girl?
Some states would not consider this statutory rape because the age of consent is 14, or if it is 16 there is an exception if the partners are only a couple of years apart.
Second, if a victim names his/her molester should you turn the molester in. There is a major problem here. While a victim names the molester it still only amounts to hearsay. You do not have first hand knowledge and probably will not have corroborating evidence. The most you can do is to encourage the victim to go to the authorities with his/her story and offer continuing support for him/her. I would also make a referral to a person that specializes counseling victims of sexual abuse.
We don't use the term 'statutory rape' over here. I'd regard the term as both inflammatory rhetoric and denigrating the seriousness of real rape. Nevertheless, what prompts the question is not the difference in age limits between one jurisdiction and another. It is that there's a depressing tendency among the unco guid to treat adolescent misconduct as notifiable child abuse with the potential for a 16 year old in these circumstances to find themselves indelibly marked for life on the register as a sex-offender.
My questions were really designed to tease out what people really think about a confessor's duty. Are all sins are equal? If not, why not, and what criteria do you follow? I notice that not many people have answered the questions, and some, nobody has tackled.
On your other point, for once (I don't usually), I agree with Exclamation Mark that if something may be evidence, it is up to those who are supposed to investigate crimes to determine whether the evidence is good or bad.
Exclamation Mark, would your readiness to notify the police only apply to possible sexual offences against children, or would it include other sorts of abuse - e.g. financial abuse of the elderly? Or do you feel you should shop anyone, e.g. a shoplifter, somebody who told you they were intending to riot to celebrate the death of a former Prime Minister, or somebody you thought was fiddling their taxes? And do you tell people what your take is on this before counselling them, or do they only find out afterwards?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Enoch
The use of statutory rape may be more American than English, true. I used it only as a form of shorthand. If both partners are two years apart (usually no more)consent to intercouse, it would not be considered child molestation. However there is a limit. If a 14 year old has sex with a 12 year old that would be considered abuse. I would say the base is 14, though I am very sure there are a bunch of 15 year olds and 13 years olds who have done it.
It is one thing to hear the confession of a past act, it is another thing to hear the confession of a future act. My standard is that if I hear that the person is considering future harm to another person, I do have the duty to warn, but I am a trained mental health counselor so I am not necessarily under the seal of confession.
As a pastor, I would say if a molester confesses that he has trouble keeping his hands off children, I would one: tell the person he is not able to commune until he addresses his problem. I would also do what I can to prevent him from being where children will be. The federal government does require reporting of known abuse of children. I guess if I were confronted with this, I would feel compelled to report it. But, understand, as a Lutheran, I am not bound by the Roman Catholic understanding of the Seal, either. Again, the standard is that if there is a potential to harm then yes there is the duty to warn, and in the case of child molesters, there is the potential to harm.
More later, I have to get ready for church.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Our Child Protection Policy in my CofE Church says that before any of our priests hear confession for the first time, they are first required to tell the person in question that while confidentiality is to be expected in most matters, there are things that they may be required by policy and law to report to the appropriate authorities. We say this, not to scare them, but so that they are aware that we do not believe the seal of the confession to be absolute, and that they cannot complain that there was an expectation of absolute confidentiality in making their confession.
Is this a parish policy, a diocesan policy, or a Church of England policy?
Are possible penitents provided with a list of offenses up front? If so, who created the list?
It sounds like parish policy. My parish has a similar policy. It reflects the Diocesan model policy but is at adds with C. of E. Guidance
However, the Anglican Church in Australia advises: quote:
According to Canon 113 of 1603 there is one exception in relation to what is
known as the Seal of the Confessional. The relevant part of that Canon reads
as follows: Provided always, That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity. In Australian law there is no provision for a person to be executed because of concealing a crime of which
that person has knowledge. Therefore this exception to the Seal of the Confessional is not applicable in Australia. In other words, under the terms of that Canon the Seal is absolute.
The Canon Concerning Confessions 1989
A recent report from Austraila reccommends: quote:
it is important that people with special training and expertise should handle such matters. It is therefore recommended that the granting of absolution in such cases be reserved to priests holding a special licence or authority from the Bishop. This would mean if a priest
heard a person making confession involving child sexual abuse that priest (if not an authorised priest) would be bound to say to the
penitent, “I am not authorised to pronounce absolution, however I will facilitate an authorised priest to hear your confession for this
purpose”.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
A few years ago, I was counselling someone suspected by the police of being a paedophile, and found myself attending the same Child Protection day as an Anglo-Catholic bishop. I asked him this question. His answer was roughly (I paraphrase):
quote:
The seal of the confessional still applies, but if that happened I would withhold absolution and require him to tell the police what he had told me before offering even the possibility of God's forgiveness.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Custard, that's precisely what my bishop has told us to do in such an event. Of course, if the penitent doesn't think absolution is worth going to jail, then there's very little you can do.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's worth pointing out, to those who don't do sacramental confession, that the penitent does not confess his/her sins TO a priest.
They confess to God. The priest is a witness who speaks on God's behalf.
In that case you are a witness to a disclosed event and still have the same responsibility to report the same. That position absolves you from nothing - in fact, legally I suspect it strengthens the need to report it.
Imagine it's your child/sister/niece that's being implicated .... wouldn't that change things?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Enoch
1. My standard is that if I hear that the person is considering future harm to another person, I do have the duty to warn, but I am a trained mental health counselor so I am not necessarily under the seal of confession.
2. As a pastor, I would say if a molester confesses that he has trouble keeping his hands off children, I would one: tell the person he is not able to commune until he addresses his problem.
3. I would also do what I can to prevent him from being where children will be. The federal government does require reporting of known abuse of children. I guess if I were confronted with this, I would feel compelled to report it.
1. That's true for the UK too - the idea of "reasonable suspicion" has to apply. If you don't know what that is, then you either haven't been trained or you shouldn't be in your job.
2. And that will stop him? I don't think that's any deterrant at all. Sounds a bit loike keeping sweets back from a naughty child.
3. Too right - again "reasonable suspicion." If you think (with knowledge of hindsight or training0 that he/she MIGHT do it, then you have a duty of care in the UK to prevent it at all costs.
As Boogies has reminded us earlier - the welfare of the child must be paramount
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE] Exclamation Mark, would your readiness to notify the police only apply to possible sexual offences against children, or would it include other sorts of abuse - e.g. financial abuse of the elderly? Or do you feel you should shop anyone, e.g. a shoplifter, somebody who told you they were intending to riot to celebrate the death of a former Prime Minister, or somebody you thought was fiddling their taxes? And do you tell people what your take is on this before counselling them, or do they only find out afterwards?
The decision whether to refer anything depends firstly on whether there's a statutory requirement (abuse e.g). If that doesn't apply then it is a matter of my personal opinion on what should be done with the information - yes I know it's subjective but that's the nature of the thing. Speeding probably not: can't prove it. Taking someone's else speeding points - possibly. Be careful of being an accessory to the fact when you'd be reasonably expected to do something about it.
Whatever anyone says, conversations of this kind are hardly on a peer to peer basis (there's always a power transfer involved when someone effectively comes to you for advice) and you make the decision to suggest a course of action dependant on lots of things.
(For example, to give or withhold absolution is a very strong power position, for example, that it would be good for those who practice it to be aware of. It wouldn't be the first time if giving/withholding absolution were used to the Confessor's own unnatural and/or inappropriate ends ....).
If, at any point in a conversation, I become aware of a matter indication potential disclosure, I stop and clarify what my approach would be with matters that may affect others or reflect illegal actions. If I suspect that the meeting has been arranged with this in mind, I'd clarify confidentiality up front with the same proviso. It hasn't stopped at least one thing being referred to me and it hasn't stopped me referring that to social services.
For those traditions who assume a high view of priesthood, there's an argument that any conversation, in person, with a priest is tantamount to "confession." In such a view, you can hardly switch on or off the idea of a priest being a "witness" to and for God. So I'd be careful what you say to your priest, even when down the pub!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
