Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: The Confessor has to act in good faith, because he is representing Jesus. He is to do nothing. He can't even check up to see if the penitent has handed himself in, because of the dangers this poses in jeopardizing the seal.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: The Confessor has to act in good faith, because he is representing Jesus. He is to do nothing. He can't even check up to see if the penitent has handed himself in, because of the dangers this poses in jeopardizing the seal.

---

But suppose that he finds out anyway, for example by reading the newspaper, that the penitent has abused another child.

Do you still think that the Confessor has done the right thing (by doing nothing)? Another child has been abused, but at least his soul is ok?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: I can assure you, that much greater evil will be unleashed on the world if the Seal is not kept.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
It begs the question as to how the confessor is able to assess repentance - and what constitutes a reasonable penance.

At the very least if someone has raped their daughter, surely the penance would include leaving the family home permanently ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: I can assure you, that much greater evil will be unleashed on the world if the Seal is not kept.

---

I guess you would be happy to stay in Omelas.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
It begs the question as to how the confessor is able to assess repentance - and what constitutes a reasonable penance.

At the very least if someone has raped their daughter, surely the penance would include leaving the family home permanently ?

---

Penance is not a punishment, nor is it a means of "paying the debt" caused by our sin. We can do neither, which is why Jesus had to be crucifted to save us from eternal danmation under the Law. Penance is a spiritual exercise intended to bring the penitent closer to the Lord.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: I'd prefer to stay anywhere than eternal hell, and I can assure you, so would you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: I'd prefer to stay anywhere than eternal hell, and I can assure you, so would you.

---

Suppose that I had the choice: save a child from abuse and I'd go to Hell, or let him/her be abused and I'd go to Heaven.

I'd choose the first. Unreservedly. And you?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: If what you posit is an actual true scenarto, then God is an evil tyrant. Fortunately it is not.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: If what you posit is an actual true scenarto, then God is an evil tyrant. Fortunately it is not.

---

It is what you posited, not me. In your example, a confessor has a choice: save his soul, or save a child.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently:where did I say that? That's right - I never said that at all.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently:where did I say that? That's right - I never said that at all.

---

Here. It's a bit more clear here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: You are putting words into my mouth. I deliberately ignored your false dichotomy in order to set you right by other means. You clearly have a further problem with the Confessional which you have neglected to declare, so I think I will just leave it there.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: You are putting words into my mouth. I deliberately ignored your false dichotomy in order to set you right by other means. You clearly have a further problem with the Confessional which you have neglected to declare, so I think I will just leave it there.

---

It's difficult to discuss things with someone who squirms and weasles and diverts so much. The question of this thread is: should a priest always keep the secret of the confessional, even in cases of pedophily where other children could be at stake? There's no false dichotomy about that.

The answer you have given to this question is: the Confessor should only care about not breaking the Seal, and for the destiny of his own soul. He shouldn't even inquire about whether the pedophile has turned himself in, or whether he has abused another child.

I call bullshit. Immoral, despicable bullshit. Whether I have another problem with the Confessional is irrelevant, my church doesn't have a Confessional.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
In your example, a confessor has a choice: save his soul, or save a child. My choice would be the latter. I wouldn't do this to become a hero or a martyr, or to foil anyone's plans, I would simply choose it because I couldn't stand to live in Heaven with the idea that I allowed a child to be abused.

Tell me how this god of yours isn't an evil tyrant?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Indifferently: You fail to understand that this is a matter of faith. Because I believe in the righteousness of God and his promises through Jesus Christ, I have sufficaent trust that he sealed the Confessional for a good reason.

---

quote:

---

Indifferently: Because you trust in man instead, you come up with a different view.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: but I suppose that one advantage of the Catholic system is that since the priest knows what's happening he can pray for both the guilty and innocent parties, for the cessation of the criminal activity and for justice to be served. It would require an absolute belief in the power of prayer.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Augustine the Aleut: I have read this thread carefully and, on the basis of my conversations with police who have worked in this field, I think that Zach82 is right; pedophiles have generally convinced themselves of the rightness of their inclinations. I do not see them confessing their activities as sins to a priest. I wonder to what extent this thread is about a reality, or about a theoretical objection to the seal of the confessional.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Indifferently, I'm still reading you as setting up the confessional as our master, not our servant; in direct opposition to what Jesus said about the Sabbath. Jesus drove a cart and horses through the religious authorities' interpretation of what fulfilling the Sabbath meant, saying 'The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath'. But you have iron-clad confidence that the same approach doesn't apply to the confessional...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
...yes, the Confessional is made for man. But there are still boundaries which must not be crossed...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
...since I have said that the more serious the sin, the greater the need for God's forgiveness, the greater the importance of the seal of the Confessional, that should settle it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't deny that their advantages in the Catholic system. I can also see the merit in believing in prayer when it is something that concerns yourself.

For example, if I had a life-threatening disease, I might want to pray —even against all odds— that the disease might go away. In this case the risk is all mine: if the disease doesn't go away, then it's my problem.

It's another thing if another person is on the line though. If I know that another person will probably get harmed, and I choose to pray rather than try to do something, it's another matter. I would at least be guilty of the sin of omission. Worse if this would be in order to save my own soul.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: But some Christians would say that praying IS doing something!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

On the other hand, maybe in practice there are ways and means for a priest to indicate his 'concerns' to a third party without directly violating the seal of the confessional?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

On the other hand, maybe in practice there are ways and means for a priest to indicate his 'concerns' to a third party without directly violating the seal of the confessional?

---

Here's canon 983 of the Roman Catholic Church:

§1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

"In any way ... for any reason ... in any fashion" seems pretty clear to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Thank you. Could one argue that mentioning 'concerns' isn't a betrayal if one doesn't say what those concerns are about....?

---

quote:

---

In addition, if someone confesses to a sin only once, but you, the priest, know or suspect that the original sins are still going on afterwards, is it against RCC law to take action regarding the later, unconfessed sins?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

7.2 There can be not disclosure of what is confessed to a priest. [..]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could one argue that mentioning 'concerns' isn't a betrayal if one doesn't say what those concerns are about....?

---

I think "in any way" would include your suggestion here.
[...]
I'm not Roman Catholic, not a priest, and not any kind of expert in canon law, but to me the instructions are clear. You can't leak information out of the confessional, so you can't "just decide" to take an evening stroll in order to encounter Joe committing the bank robbery that he confessed to planning.

[...]
If you have independent knowledge of a crime outside the confessional, you can and should report it to the appropriate authorities - but only including information which you have obtained outside confession.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... It is also worth, I think, quoting the 2003 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy, which are currently in force in the Church of England, and address this explicitly:

7.2 There can be no disclosure of what is confessed to a priest. [..]

7.3 Where abuse of children of vulnerable adults is admitted in the context of confession, the priest should urge the person to report his or her behaviour to the police or social services, and should also make this a condition of absolution, or withhold absolution until this evidence of repentance has been demonstrated.

7.4 If a penitent's behaviour gravely threatens his or her well-being or that of others, the priest, while advising action on the penitent's part, must still keep the confidence.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Checking the original, it even applies after the penitent has died. Are we agreed that, whether one likes it or not, that closes the debate as far as the CofE is concerned?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.

---

What offence would they be committing?

It's more likely to arise if they were subpoenaed to give evidence against their will, and declined to answer questions. Would that be contempt of court?

That wouldn't have been an issue until recently, as the answer to 'what did X tell you he/she had done?' would in most contexts have been inadmissible as hearsay.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.

---

What offence would they be committing?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know what any specific potential offences might be called (I'm not a lawyer!) but I mainly had child and vulnerable person safeguarding in mind. Is it not an offence of some sort to suspect or witness abuse but do nothing about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

And is it called being an 'accessory after the fact' when someone tells you about an actual crime and you don't report it? That phrase is in my head, but it could be from films and therefore quite possibly not accurate...

---

Your self-analysis is spot on

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
...yes, the Confessional is made for man. But there are still boundaries which must not be crossed...

---

This seems contradictory to me. The existence of any 'boundary which must not be crossed' indicates to me that, at some point, the Confessional (should it have capital 'C'? I didn't mean to offend by not capitalising earlier) takes precedence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
...since I have said that the more serious the sin, the greater the need for God's forgiveness, the greater the importance of the seal of the Confessional, that should settle it.

---

I hope I've understood you here - are you saying forgiveness from God can only come when one has confessed to a priest in the Confessional? There must be caveats on this, surely, otherwise the only way of entering eternity with God would be to die pretty much immediately after Confession, right? And - getting back on topic - if a priest breaks the Confessional seal with the best of intentions, believing it to be the right thing to do in the particular circumstances, would you say that priest must repent or else face eternity without God?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

On the other hand, maybe in practice there are ways and means for a priest to indicate his 'concerns' to a third party without directly violating the seal of the confessional?

---

Here's canon 983 of the Roman Catholic Church:

§1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

"In any way ... for any reason ... in any fashion" seems pretty clear to me.

---

Thank you. Could one argue that mentioning 'concerns' isn't a betrayal if one doesn't say what those concerns are about....?

In addition, if someone confesses to a sin only once, but you, the priest, know or suspect that the original sins are still going on afterwards, is it against RCC law to take action regarding the later, unconfessed sins?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
No. Confession is not compulsory. Man is justified by God's unmediated grace. The Homily on Justification tells us the Church doctrine on this perfectly well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Church of England does not hold to Roman Catholic unscriptural legalism with respect to Confession. I'm not sure how you deduced that from anything I had said.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.

---

Do priests ever forget what they've heard in the confessional? Do they have to make notes? I was thinking that forgetting would be a good thing, because what you don't remember can't influence you in any way. But forgetting might be a bad thing if you only half-forget, if you think someone's confessed to one sin, but in fact they've confessed to something else. How can you will yourself not to be 'prejudiced' by a confessed sin if you can't quite remember what you heard in the confessional and what you heard, say, on a social visit?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay, thanks again, The Man with a Stick. I shall consider myself educated!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
No. Confession is not compulsory. Man is justified by God's unmediated grace. The Homily on Justification tells us the Church doctrine on this perfectly well.

---

What is the 'Homily on Justification', please? And by 'Church', I presume you mean your church, which is the C of E, yes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Church of England does not hold to Roman Catholic unscriptural legalism with respect to Confession. I'm not sure how you deduced that from anything I had said.

---

Sorry, my bad. So, for Anglicans, the point of Confession is that it's helpful for us in terms of enabling us to experience God's grace and releasing us from feelings of guilt. It's not that you believe the formal act of Confession is something all Christians must do or else risk damnation or some other consequence?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
No. If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.

The secrets of all hearts are open to God. There is no way of getting round the seal of the Confessional.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
No. If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.

The secrets of all hearts are open to God. There is no way of getting round the seal of the Confessional.

---

It is simply plain idiocy for a priest not to discuss with the person who wants to be treasurer about their application and how the priest is not in support of it. This can all take place within the confessional. It has nothing whatsoever to do with violating the confessional. It has to do with good, decent and proper priest behaviour. Untrained priests or those not fitted to be might not be with it enough to understand their extended responsibility.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Homily on Justification can be found here:
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm

---