|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BBC2 programme on paedophile priests
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I agree with everything fletcher's just posted.
The 1970's weren't the dark ages - not even in Ireland. People knew rape and sexual assault are wrong and a criminal offence. If some stranger had leapt out of the bushes and molested a child there wouldn't have been any doubt about it being a crime and the police would have been involved. Why is it different if the rapist is a priest?
It's got nothing to do with obedience to bishops. Anyone who assists in covering up a crime carries some of the guilt.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Fletcher Christian - deep breaths, now! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It's an emotional subject, so I'm guessing you haven't really taken on board the particular point I'm making. And maybe I'm not making it clearly enough.
I'm not saying that Cardinal Brady was right. I'm not saying he wasn't culpable. I'm not saying that 'I was only following instructions' is an adequate reason, for not exceeding his clerical remit. Nothing I've posted excuses him, offers apology for, or justifies him in any way. Least of all the proposal that times were different then.
I'm saying that if the culpability of the note-taker, who did his duty to the full extent required of him, is justified - which I haven't doubted - how much more so the culpability of the authority and Church structure that set things up in such a way to give the note-taker the idea that he merely had to meet his remit to be excused of fault.
I'm saying that the captain who gives the order to 'fire' is at least, if not even more guilty of blame, as the corporal - one of many - who shoots the gun. And additionally, I'm saying it's a mistake to focus on the corporal to the extent that the captain and his authority structure are ignored. Which is how the programme - good as it is in many aspects - and current reporting etc are coming across.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Perhaps I'm being very simple minced here, but the issue as I see it is that Brady did nothing. When I was a very young teacher in London in the early 70s I had an eleven year old in my class. I won't go into the circumstances but she told me that she was being abused by her father. And the account she gave was clearly truthful. I told the head who said that I was not to worry myself any further, the matter was in the hands of the parish priest who would deal with the father of the girl. Despite the fact that I believed then (as I do now) that the priest was a good and holy man, I made it my business to go the social services office and lay the matter before them as I believed that the child needed skilled help from trained professionals. If I could do that as a 24 year old in the 70s, then so could others.
This is the nub of it for me. In my long years as a teacher, there have been times when I've reported child protection concerns to the relevant colleague. Thankfully, appropriate action has always been taken but if it hadn't, I would have done exactly as Edith did. One's role in a priestly or professional hierarchy is irrelevant. Talk of the culture of the time is a red herring. There was, in the 70's, little awareness of the true extent of child abuse, but no decent person would doubt that when it occurred, it was a horrific crime. Given evidence that it was in fact occurring in this case, there was a straightforward, human, personal duty to do something about it. No buck-passing, no excuses.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Also, there is some evidence that he wasn't just a 'note-taker'. A record in his own handwriting refers to his role as being sent to investigate the allegations.
[ 03. May 2012, 22:53: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE] ..............I just wonder if the Irish Catholic Church can move on without a particularly strong and passionate response to their pain from Rome..............
I agree entirely with your analysis
in paricular - from a PR point of view I suspect that the professional advice would have been to have announced at a 1000 on Thursday press conference that the Cardinal was now a pension-less ex-priest. That might have created the image of a strong, determined and genuinely horrified organisation sending out a) a message to its troops that they must not behave this way and b) telling the world that they abhorred such wicked acts by a tiny minority of those troops.
The moment has probably passed - such a statement now might generally be assumed to be the product, not of a shocked and horrified leadership but, of an organisation which had coldly balanced the pros and cons (with particular reference to finance) and reluctantly decided on a least worse course of action. (consider NoW/News International and Rebekka Brooks).
Regarding the culture of fear referred to in the programme: when any individual/organisation believes that it answers to a higher authority than the state and can inhabit its own image of morality, and is permitted to do so, it has massive power and will become corrupt. The RCC in Ireland seems determined to maintain this assumption of superiority over its officials' duties to the state and its individual members - hence the article under the headline in Irish Central Irish priests say they will disobey new confession box law on child abuse
Irish Central
I fear that this struggle for power will damage many more decent, trusting people before it concludes.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
From the Irish Central link above a comment on the story points out that all this happened in Northern Ireland:
quote:
Patrick Roberts, Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady were in Northern Ireland, NOT Ireland. 37 years ago the Royal Ulster Constabulary attempted to arrest Smyth but were stymied by Brady who sent Smyth to Ireland to avoid arrest. You are also misinformed about Brady's current responsiveness on the issue. It is non-existent which is why the Pope sent Cardinal Sean O'Malley from Boston to Armagh in recent weeks to force him to comply
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Concerning the topic of this thread, I find myself agreeing with Trisagion's canon law informed take on Crœsos' statement "There should probably be a rule or understanding that having to resort to the Nuremberg defense is a tacit admission of severe moral failing." I can only hope that the Cardinal leaves sooner rather than later.
However, this is something different entirely:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The RCC in Ireland seems determined to maintain this assumption of superiority over its officials' duties to the state and its individual members - hence the article under the headline in Irish Central Irish priests say they will disobey new confession box law on child abuse Irish Central
I will not move an inch from supporting the strict secrecy of the confessional, and I hope that as in times past priests will rather become martyrs than violate this sacrament. The secular opposition to confession is evil, but more importantly, plain idiotic. If confession will be broken for child abuse, then child abuse will not be confessed. Duh. Whatever chances there may be for a confessor to make a child abuser stop, it is necessarily going to get destroyed by the state heavying in on this. Note to law makers: If the child abuser was ready to let the state know about his crimes, he would walk into the next police station.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
If someone confessed to sexual abuse, wouldn't the priest tell him he could receive absolution only if he confessed to the secular authorities? True repentance would require such a secular confession, and without repentance could there be absolution?
I can't believe that anyone would repeatedly confess sexual abuse and repeatedly be absolved without having to face the consequences. It would be like someone who made a living by robbing banks and confessed regularly, only to rob more banks next week.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
I agree with Moo. Surely a confession is not a real confession with repentance unless it includes the willingness to face the consequences of actions and submit to justice.
It seems highly unlikely to me that a confessor has any power to make an abuser stop, or that this ever happens. Repeat abusers generally do not stop without negative consequences for their actions. It seems far more likely to me that they will manipulate their confessor.
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If someone confessed to sexual abuse, wouldn't the priest tell him he could receive absolution only if he confessed to the secular authorities? True repentance would require such a secular confession, and without repentance could there be absolution? I can't believe that anyone would repeatedly confess sexual abuse and repeatedly be absolved without having to face the consequences. It would be like someone who made a living by robbing banks and confessed regularly, only to rob more banks next week.
The priest hearing the confession must judge what is the best way forward in the particular case. That said, in general I think the only choice the priest has is to refuse absolution (for the time being), since conditional absolution like all sacraments cannot be bound to future events, but only to past or present ones. Here's a useful summary concerning the denial of absolution:
quote:
"Elements of Moral Theology" by John J. Elmendorf
Absolution must be denied (1) when there is no evidence of a determination to amend; (2) when restitution or satisfaction is refused; (3) when the remedies directed are refused, or previously proposed remedies have not been employed, especially when evil habits are concerned, and no special contrition is exhibited on account of the new sin; (4) when there is evident unwillingness to forgive others; (5) when perseverance in evil ways is shown by an unwillingness to avoid the proximate occasions of sin, or of giving occasion to others' sin, those occasions being voluntary and not necessary.
... (4) Habitual sinners may be absolved only if there seem to be full purpose of amendment of life; but if there have been neglect of previously prescribed discipline, absolution should surely be deferred until sincerity has been more fully evinced than by the feeling, perhaps a transient one, shown at the time of confession.
It guess that on a first time confession that seems to indicate true contrition a priest could reasonably absolve a child abuser, imposing the punishment for their crimes following from handing themselves over to the secular authorities as part of the penance. However, clearly there is no reason why a priest should allow a cycle of repeat abuse, confession and absolution. Or for that matter absolve if the perpetrator shows no intention of providing satisfaction for the crime and seeking professional treatment.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If someone confessed to sexual abuse, wouldn't the priest tell him he could receive absolution only if he confessed to the secular authorities? True repentance would require such a secular confession, and without repentance could there be absolution?
In my diocese a priest can withhold absolution unless he or she has evidence for true repentance with amendment of life.
Very difficult to patrol obviously - but the point is that their is no absolute requirement to absolve if there is no evidence of true repentance.
Our diocese if having workshops/courses/talks on this very issue at the moment.
Repeated absolution with obvious reoffence is ridiculous.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Moo is quite correct in what (s)he says,but the fact that absolution would not be given,does not mean that the priest can divulge what was said.
As a life long Catholic I feel enormous shame each time I read of events like these.Wherever people have power there are always those who will abuse it.Nowadays we are almost encouraged to think that any sort of consensual sex between adults is a 'good thing'.Popular magazines tell us to investigate our sexual feelings.Fifty years ago this was not the case.Sex was something private which one didn't talk about in public.Of course as in every generation going back to the dawn of time there would be a good number of people who would fully investigate their sexual potential,but it would generally be done somewhat clandestinely.Without the same publicity which we have at the touch of a button nowadays many people would have little idea of what others were doing in the sexual sphere and would sometimes easily feel that certain reported events simply could not be true and would have been made up by mischievous people.This is certainly not to attempt to remove any blame from those who abused the power which they had.
Furthermore to go back to the Confession aspect,Christianity (and indeed the Catholic Church) teaches that if we are sorry for our sins,then God will forgive us -provided we are truly sorry.The slate will be wiped clean and we can start again.
Not only Catholics,but other Christians have that awareness that we are imperfect.Even those who are possibly rotten to the core are God's creatures and He can help them to improve.Those who carried out sexual abuse may have believed that it was a weakness on their part which could be improved at some other time.
In every religion ther is always a certain amount of fundamentalism and fanaticism.Generally that fundamentalism and fanaticism is tempered by the indifference even scepticism of many outward adherents of the religion which to me helps to keep the religious community on an even keel.Due to the particular history of Ireland and the fact that for many centuries Catholicism was a suppressed and persecuted form of religion there was little room for indifference and scepticism at the time when the Irish State gained its freedom and gave perhaps a greater power and respect to the Catholic church than it might have had in a number of other traditionally Catholic countries.
This form of abuse is not,of course,confined to Ireland,nor is it confined to the lower clergy.About 20 years ago the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna was forced to step down after accusation of sexual abuse on his part which for the rest of his life he refused to comment upon.More recently we have the case of the Bishop of Bruges and the case of the resident Catholic bishop in Trondheim,Norway.
Each one of us has to examine our own consciences and see how we can improve and hope and believe that this will help others.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If someone confessed to sexual abuse, wouldn't the priest tell him he could receive absolution only if he confessed to the secular authorities? True repentance would require such a secular confession, and without repentance could there be absolution?
In my diocese a priest can withhold absolution unless he or she has evidence for true repentance with amendment of life.
Very difficult to patrol obviously - but the point is that their is no absolute requirement to absolve if there is no evidence of true repentance.
Our diocese if having workshops/courses/talks on this very issue at the moment.
Repeated absolution with obvious reoffence is ridiculous.
Thanks. That is very helpful. We have been having an ongoing discussion in this (C of E) diocese about the seal of the confessional and how this relates to child abuse and also re- vulnerable adults.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Anselmina:
quote:
I'm saying that the captain who gives the order to 'fire' is at least, if not even more guilty of blame, as the corporal - one of many - who shoots the gun. And additionally, I'm saying it's a mistake to focus on the corporal to the extent that the captain and his authority structure are ignored. Which is how the programme - good as it is in many aspects - and current reporting etc are coming across.
I understand now where you are coming from and to some extent I was responding to you, but also to the general tenor of some of the posts in the thread. However, I think it appears that Brady is being targeted alone because the other two priests can't be named. I imagine that they cannot be named because they are already the subject of an investigation or are been investigated due to disclosed details in various reports. They could also of course be dead, but I think it would still be a little unusual to have a ban on the mention of their names for this reason. But remember when this story broke initially (which was actually quite some time ago but with a little less detail) there was also a press ban on the names of the other two priests. It does look a little lop sided now when the only character being chased is Brady, but this was a man who initially said if anything was amiss he would instantly resign and admit failing. Bet he wishes on his mothers grave that he never uttered those words - but its still a criminal shame that he didn't act on others.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Repeated absolution with obvious reoffence is ridiculous.
Yes, yes, yes. I'd go much further - from my perspective, being thoroughly ignorant of Catholic theology and practice, it seems equally ridiculous for a crime as serious as sexual abuse to be confessed without the priest being absolutely required to pass the information on to the police. What justice is there in the usual requirement to pass on such information being waived solely because of the context in which the information was given?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose if some confessed crimes were to be passed on by priests to police, then confession becomes pointless. I mean pointless as a confidential place, where anything can be revealed. It would become a place for revealing sins which are legally OK.
I suppose priests could publish a list of those sins which are notifiable, and those which are not. It's OK to confess that you had an affair, but not that you robbed a bank.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What justice is there in the usual requirement to pass on such information being waived solely because of the context in which the information was given?
The underlying premise for privileged communications is that such communications are required to fulfill a socially necessary function. For example, communications between a lawyer and client are usually considered privileged because it's a necessary factor in allowing the accused to mount a competent legal defense. This is held to outweigh the benefit to the state of having a spy inside the office of the legal defense. It may be argued the clergy-penitent relationship does not provide the level of broader social benefit found in doctor-patient relationships or lawyer-client relationships, but the underlying argument for privileged communication is the same.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, quetzalcoatl! Otherwise, the confessional is being treated as above the law and I don't think it should be. Could anyone link me, a total ignoramus when it comes to most things Catholic, to a succinct argument for why we should in fact treat the confessional as above the law?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, communications between a lawyer and client are usually considered privileged because it's a necessary factor in allowing the accused to mount a competent legal defense. This is held to outweigh the benefit to the state of having a spy inside the office of the legal defense.
But in this situation, the legal process is already taking place. I suppose that's the reason why lawyers aren't obliged to pass on details of crimes confessed to them. And as for doctor-patient relationships, I thought doctors had to pass on details of any crimes confessed and indeed any suspicions that someone (the patient or another person) was in danger. At least that's what I thought the situation was in the UK.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'd like to note two facts:
1) Misprision of felony is no longer considered a crime in most Western nations. The idea of the general citizenry being drafted as de facto state informants is abhorent to a free society.
2) Some professions are considered "obligated reporters" due to the greater position of trust placed in them. In the current context that includes most professionals who deal with children (in a professional capacity) on a regular basis. I'm not sure the justification for including all clergy generally in this category.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, communications between a lawyer and client are usually considered privileged because it's a necessary factor in allowing the accused to mount a competent legal defense. This is held to outweigh the benefit to the state of having a spy inside the office of the legal defense.
But in this situation, the legal process is already taking place. I suppose that's the reason why lawyers aren't obliged to pass on details of crimes confessed to them.
Not at all. Lawyer-client communications are still considered privileged even if undertaken before charges are filed, or even in cases not involving criminal actions (e.g. divorces). The reason lawyers aren't obligated to rat out their clients is that having a legal obligation to do so would interfere with their client's ability to plan their legal defense. In this case the right of the accused to competent legal counsel is held to outweigh the state's need for information.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, communications between a lawyer and client are usually considered privileged because it's a necessary factor in allowing the accused to mount a competent legal defense. This is held to outweigh the benefit to the state of having a spy inside the office of the legal defense.
But in this situation, the legal process is already taking place. I suppose that's the reason why lawyers aren't obliged to pass on details of crimes confessed to them. And as for doctor-patient relationships, I thought doctors had to pass on details of any crimes confessed and indeed any suspicions that someone (the patient or another person) was in danger. At least that's what I thought the situation was in the UK.
The situation is slightly more nuanced.
If you're a defence lawyer, and your client tells you he did the crime and he's going to plead not guilty, you are in no way obliged to represent him. Obviously, it does happen, but the lawyer is an officer of the court, and shouldn't make representations they know are false.
I think for doctors (as well as teachers), they have a statutory duty to report in some cases.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Oh okay, thanks for that, Croesos. I'm extrapolating a bit too much from training I've had in various roles working with children...
But on the specific point regarding 'obligated reporters' I would certainly include clergy if they have the kind of access to children that makes sexual abuse even a slight possibility. Surely any clergy-person could very easily (a) end up in a position of great trust with a child, and (b) have unobserved interaction with children. Given this, I'd say let's err on the side of caution and require all clergy to report any suspicions that a child might be at risk.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'd go much further - from my perspective, being thoroughly ignorant of Catholic theology and practice, it seems equally ridiculous for a crime as serious as sexual abuse to be confessed without the priest being absolutely required to pass the information on to the police. What justice is there in the usual requirement to pass on such information being waived solely because of the context in which the information was given?
Never mind all that Catholic business about God, the Church and forgiving sins ... just stop and think about the actual situation. Why might a child abuser confess his sin to a priest, even though he is keeping that abuse hidden from everybody else? Aside from whatever that perpetrator may believe about the religious stuff, which we are leaving aside here: Of course because the child abuser can be absolutely sure that the priest will not run to the police or anybody else and tell on him. The veil of secrecy of the confession is the very condition for the confession!
What this means is that no matter how heinous a crime, one person still remains who the perpetrator can talk to without fearing instant retribution: the priest. Will this talking do any good? Who knows... But would you rather have a situation where such people have nobody they can talk to? Would you rather that they cannot speak their sin anywhere, that they cannot have access to any advice other than the voices in their heads? Maybe the chance that this is the turning point for a perpetrator to stop his crimes is one in ten. Maybe it is one in a million. But it sure is better than the big fat zero you will get without it.
To repeat: secular opposition to confessional secrecy is really ill thought through. If this wasn't provided for religious reasons, then it would have to be re-invented as a secular measure (except that it would be very difficult for any secular institution to convince people of a deep ideological commitment to absolute secrecy). It is a terrible mistake to close down all communication channels with the imminent threat of severe punishment. There must remain someone one can talk to who is not entirely hostile. This is recognized for example in hostage crises, where the role of the negotiator is often key.
And returning to religion, it makes of course perfect sin for the priest to stand ready to hear the darkest evil that man may commit. For he is charged to deliver the bottomless forgiveness of God to any contrite heart, no matter how utterly unforgivable the deeds are by any human measure (and indeed no matter what human justice will do with the offender).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The situation is slightly more nuanced.
If you're a defence lawyer, and your client tells you he did the crime and he's going to plead not guilty, you are in no way obliged to represent him. Obviously, it does happen, but the lawyer is an officer of the court, and shouldn't make representations they know are false.
That's a different (though related) question. Lawyers are not permitted to submit evidence they know is false, but they're still ethically forbidden from volunteering privileged information to the state.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Repeated absolution with obvious reoffence is ridiculous.
Yes, yes, yes. I'd go much further - from my perspective, being thoroughly ignorant of Catholic theology and practice, it seems equally ridiculous for a crime as serious as sexual abuse to be confessed without the priest being absolutely required to pass the information on to the police. What justice is there in the usual requirement to pass on such information being waived solely because of the context in which the information was given?
You are asking the wrong question - confession is not about justice, its about power - just as is auditing in $cientology. Sometimes that power (the fear of hell or whatever) may be used to the benefit of society, but there is the certainty that, uncalculably sometimes, it will be used for the power/comfort/benefit of the hearer. If there are no limits on the priests they have carte-blanche and some will misuse it. (As would some salesmen, some doctors and some busdrivers to start a very long list).
The argument is made that if criminals knew that their crime was to be reported they would not confess them.
a) duh
b) perhaps they would be less likely to commit them if they knew that they would have to face either death without confession or punishment via the state.
This disingenuous they wouldn't tell argument is surely based, knowingly or unknowingly, on a false assumption. As a person who has no experience of religious confession I should like to know from those who can advise - what is the position of a confessor who learns of (say) child abuse from someone who is not the perpetrator; may be the victim, maybe someone who has observed, overheard etc. information that they disclose to the priest during their confession. Would the rules permit or insist upon the information being passed to the police/social services?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What this means is that no matter how heinous a crime, one person still remains who the perpetrator can talk to without fearing instant retribution: the priest. Will this talking do any good? Who knows... But would you rather have a situation where such people have nobody they can talk to? Would you rather that they cannot speak their sin anywhere, that they cannot have access to any advice other than the voices in their heads?
I think I would rather there be nobody to whom an abuser can speak without fearing instant retribution. I'm struggling to put my feelings in to words but there's just a gut reaction of horror within me that anybody could have the right to hear of something as evil as child abuse without having to report it to the state-appointed authorities.
Maybe HughWillRidMee is right that removing the privileged status of the confessional would stop a few Catholics from committing such crimes, but even if not, I'm deeply uncomfortable with priests being above the law like this. Confessing sins like adultery (which are not crimes), fine; but confessing crimes, especially those as damaging as sexual abuse, certainly not.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
Does anyone know the Anglican position on this? We have confession for those who request it. What would an Anglican priest be permitted / required to do in these circumstances?
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure why child abuse is any different from other extreme crimes. I assume that Catholic priests have always heard confessions about murder and rape, and do not pass them on to the police. For example, presumably IRA members availed themselves of this.
But as I said earlier, without this confidentiality, then there is no point to confession, I would have thought. It's a bit odd to say, you can confess anything in a sealed confessional, except really bad things.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Maybe HughWillRidMee is right that removing the privileged status of the confessional would stop a few Catholics from committing such crimes, but even if not, I'm deeply uncomfortable with priests being above the law like this. Confessing sins like adultery (which are not crimes), fine; but confessing crimes, especially those as damaging as sexual abuse, certainly not.
As noted before, misprision of felony is no longer a crime.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, presumably IRA members availed themselves of this.
Were all supposed to be excommunicate
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
You are asking the wrong question - confession is not about justice, its about power - just as is auditing in $cientology. Sometimes that power (the fear of hell or whatever) may be used to the benefit of society, but there is the certainty that, uncalculably sometimes, it will be used for the power/comfort/benefit of the hearer.
I guess one could construct a case that hearing of confessions maintains "proper Catholic order" and thereby indirectly the status and livelihood of priests. Whether that is good or bad I guess depends on whether one considers "proper Catholic order" good or bad - and since I consider it very good indeed, I would be most happy if confessions indeed had such an effect. However, I see no way that a priest can derive more immediate and personal "power / comfort / benefit" from hearing confessions, which would not run counter the many rules that regulate this sacrament. Well, priests can presumably draw considerable spiritual benefit from extending God's mercy to sinners. Once more, I consider this very good indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If there are no limits on the priests they have carte-blanche and some will misuse it. (As would some salesmen, some doctors and some busdrivers to start a very long list).
What do you mean by "no limits on the priest"? There's plenty of canon law and other guidance concerning confession, and it has a very specific outcome. The only obvious forms of abuse are the priest forgiving too readily or imposing too severe penances. It is reasonable to assume that such abuses have been, are and will be happening occasionally, but they are largely irrelevant for the question whether the seal of confession should be inviolable.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The argument is made that if criminals knew that their crime was to be reported they would not confess them.
a) duh
b) perhaps they would be less likely to commit them if they knew that they would have to face either death without confession or punishment via the state.
a) I'm glad that you understand how stupid it is to try to force priests to break the seal of confession. b) Confessing your sins and obtaining absolution for them are two different things. Above I've posted some reason why absolution would not be given in spite of a confession.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
This disingenuous they wouldn't tell argument is surely based, knowingly or unknowingly, on a false assumption.
What pray is "disingenuous" about the argument? It is entirely obvious, as acknowledged by your own "duh" above.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
As a person who has no experience of religious confession I should like to know from those who can advise - what is the position of a confessor who learns of (say) child abuse from someone who is not the perpetrator; may be the victim, maybe someone who has observed, overheard etc. information that they disclose to the priest during their confession. Would the rules permit or insist upon the information being passed to the police/social services?
Of course. Indeed, even if a priest hears it directly from the perpetrator, but apart from the sacrament of confession, they can and should of course report to the relevant authorities. It is only when something is explicitly communicated under the seal of confession that it is protected.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
Does anyone know the Anglican position on this? We have confession for those who request it. What would an Anglican priest be permitted / required to do in these circumstances?
I can only talk about the Church of England - the other 37 provinces may be quite different.
In English law confessions are regarded as being highly privileged. This, obviously, is different to the situation that may soon pertain in Ireland. The C of E position on confession is, famously, that 'all may, none must, some should'. My understanding is that if one hears a confession it is absolutely confidential and, speaking for myself, I would rather go to prison than break the seal.
Before people start berating me with: "you would allow a child abuser to run amok! you fiend!" let me point something out.
First of all an impenitent child abuser has most likely convinced himself that he is doing nothing wrong. He will hardly feel the need to be routinely shriven.
Secondly, as Jean-Paul Sartre once pointed out when people ask for advice or guidance the person they ask indicates the advice or guidance that they are looking for. Sartre took the case of a young man who is considering joining the French Resistance or looking after his sick mum. He cites the opinion "ask a priest" but the advice one would get from a priest who supported the resistance would obviously be different from the advice one would get from a priest whose weekly sermon was a panegyric on Marshal Petain. Consequently when people come for moral guidance what they want is a ratification of what they already want to do. A child abuser who confesses to a C of E priest today wants to hear that what they are doing is wrong and they need to confess to the police what they have been up to.
There, is, I concede an outside possibility that I may, one day, be confronted with a child molester who is sufficiently wracked with guilt that they want to confess but not sufficiently wracked that they want to hand themselves in to the fuzz. In which case, may God have mercy on my soul. But I don't worry much about the possibility, it doesn't strike me as being particularly likely.
The proposed law in Ireland strikes me as grandstanding by Irish politicians who after years of being more Catholic than the Pope have now discovered the joys of anti-clericalism. There was a notable case in France where a bishop was imprisoned for refusing to break the seal in a case of child abuse but in 99.99% of instances the queues outside confessionals are not filled with kiddie fiddlers wanting to tell the clergy what they have been up to without taking the consequences.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Bean:
quote:
Does anyone know the Anglican position on this? We have confession for those who request it. What would an Anglican priest be permitted / required to do in these circumstances?
Episci's in Ireland since 1992 have been required to inform a potential penitent who may veer towards disclosure of a criminal act that they are bound both by church law and state law to disclose the nature of the crime to the relevant authorities. If the penitent still proceeds to divulge information in confession the cleric must by law (both in church and state) report the crime. In a situation where a child or children may be in danger, again, the cleric is obliged by both church and state law to make an immediate report to the relevant authorities. There are other 'curious' situations where the rule of closed confessional is interrupted - for example, where a psychiatric patient in the confessional makes a clear statement of intent to do harm to another or to harm themselves (especially if they have been on suicide watch previously) and this is deemed a genuine issue, then the cleric again is obliged by state and church law to report it. Basically it can prove complex, but the rule of thumb is generally that criminal activity that is ongoing or that should have faced a charge and didn't, should not be made in the confessional to numb the conscience of an adult that, for instance, has raped a child. There is nothing to stop such a person from availing of confession and absolution after they have shown due remorse in going to the relevant authorities and handing themselves in.
The other options are that under the confessional the cleric may not give absolution and can agree a time frame for which the person should take appropriate action regarding their past or ongoing criminal activity. If the person does not report to the relevant authorities and take personal responsibility for their crime then the cleric can in good conscience go to the police/gards. How you manage this gap of time when there might be children at risk would seem to me to be a very difficult situation.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Bean:
quote:
Does anyone know the Anglican position on this? We have confession for those who request it. What would an Anglican priest be permitted / required to do in these circumstances?
Episci's in Ireland since 1992 have been required to inform a potential penitent who may veer towards disclosure of a criminal act that they are bound both by church law and state law to disclose the nature of the crime to the relevant authorities. If the penitent still proceeds to divulge information in confession the cleric must by law (both in church and state) report the crime. In a situation where a child or children may be in danger, again, the cleric is obliged by both church and state law to make an immediate report to the relevant authorities. There are other 'curious' situations where the rule of closed confessional is interrupted - for example, where a psychiatric patient in the confessional makes a clear statement of intent to do harm to another or to harm themselves (especially if they have been on suicide watch previously) and this is deemed a genuine issue, then the cleric again is obliged by state and church law to report it. Basically it can prove complex, but the rule of thumb is generally that criminal activity that is ongoing or that should have faced a charge and didn't, should not be made in the confessional to numb the conscience of an adult that, for instance, has raped a child. There is nothing to stop such a person from availing of confession and absolution after they have shown due remorse in going to the relevant authorities and handing themselves in.
The other options are that under the confessional the cleric may not give absolution and can agree a time frame for which the person should take appropriate action regarding their past or ongoing criminal activity. If the person does not report to the relevant authorities and take personal responsibility for their crime then the cleric can in good conscience go to the police/gards. How you manage this gap of time when there might be children at risk would seem to me to be a very difficult situation.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think I would rather there be nobody to whom an abuser can speak without fearing instant retribution.
Well, I am a Christian. Evil must be fought with charity, even if that kills us. Not stupidity, not license, but still, charity. I am not free in this regard, but under command.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm struggling to put my feelings in to words but there's just a gut reaction of horror within me that anybody could have the right to hear of something as evil as child abuse without having to report it to the state-appointed authorities.
The right?!? The terrifying duty. Many priests surely have paid a horrible price for this attempt to instantiate Divine mercy, and I'm not just talking about those who were killed for keeping silent.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Confessing sins like adultery (which are not crimes), fine; but confessing crimes, especially those as damaging as sexual abuse, certainly not.
Again, confession does not equal absolution. A thoroughly contrite heart however does. And yes, there is something greater there than you and I, the God who will look at a child abuser or for that matter at the man who has murdered millions, and if they only truly repent in their days on earth, will accept them as saints into heaven.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm curious if the Irish govt is proposing to compel priests to report only confessions of child abuse, or of all crimes.
The first position sounds very bizarre. You are allowed to confess murder, rape and war crimes to a priest, with no fear of it being reported, but not child abuse.
The second position would basically destroy confession, or it would produce countless martyred priests, languishing in jail.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
The Anglican church of Australia has done quite a bit of work on confessional and child sexual abuse.
Private confession for sexual abuse stipulates the following guidelines for absolution:
quote:
Guidelines for the Hearing of Confessions and the Granting of Absolution with special reference to Child Sexual Abuse
1. Care must be taken when a penitent comes to confession that the confession is heard and absolution is pronounced according to an authorised rite of the Church.
2. The granting of absolution in confessions involving child sexual abuse is reserved to priests holding a special licence or authority from the bishop.
3. All confessions involving child sexual abuse are to be referred forthwith to a priest holding the bishop's licence to administer absolution in such cases. In other words the priest (unless specially licensed) must decline to pronounce absolution and refer the matter on.
4. The penitent is to be given clear direction to seek help and counselling from people qualified to do so.
5. Priests holding the bishop’s licence are to receive appropriate training and to be properly informed about what professional help is available.
6. Absolution must be withheld until the priest is satisfied that there is genuine repentance and, apart from exceptional circumstances, until the penitent has reported the matter to the police or other appropriate authority .
The confessional is sealed by canon law but there seem to be some odd exceptions that I can't quite get my head around. e.g. I think there are cases where secular law can require the seal broken.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see no way that a priest can derive more immediate and personal "power / comfort / benefit" from hearing confessions, which would not run counter the many rules that regulate this sacrament.
You seriously think that a priest who (say) abuses other human beings is going to give a **** about breaking his church’s rules – since it seems that, at least historically, even were he caught out there was a good chance that his punishment would be minor or non-existent.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If there are no limits on the priests they have carte-blanche and some will misuse it. (As would some salesmen, some doctors and some bus drivers to start a very long list What do you mean by "no limits on the priest"? There's plenty of canon law and other guidance concerning confession, and it has a very specific outcome. The only obvious forms of abuse are the priest forgiving too readily or imposing too severe penances. It is reasonable to assume that such abuses have been, are and will be happening occasionally, but they are largely irrelevant for the question whether the seal of confession should be inviolable. ).
see above
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The argument is made that if criminals knew that their crime was to be reported they would not confess them.
a) duh
b) perhaps they would be less likely to commit them if they knew that they would have to face either death without confession or punishment via the state.
a) I'm glad that you understand how stupid it is to try to force priests to break the seal of confession. If the abuser knew that the priest would pass the information on effectively and therefore did not confess it would, at least, prevent the priest being able to fail in his civic duty. b) Confessing your sins and obtaining absolution for them are two different things. Above I've posted some reason why absolution would not be given in spite of a confession. You trust people because of their title?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
This disingenuous they wouldn't tell argument is surely based, knowingly or unknowingly, on a false assumption.
What pray is "disingenuous" about the argument? It is entirely obvious, as acknowledged by your own "duh" above.
Your answer below means that it was my assumption that was false. (Mea Culpa?)
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
As a person who has no experience of religious confession I should like to know from those who can advise - what is the position of a confessor who learns of (say) child abuse from someone who is not the perpetrator; may be the victim, maybe someone who has observed, overheard etc. information that they disclose to the priest during their confession. Would the rules permit or insist upon the information being passed to the police/social services?
Of course. Indeed, even if a priest hears it directly from the perpetrator, but apart from the sacrament of confession, they can and should of course report to the relevant authorities. It is only when something is explicitly communicated under the seal of confession that it is protected.
So a priest can, and should, inform the authorities of crimes – except when he is told he shouldn’t by his god, his church as proxy for his god, his bishop as proxy for his church???
The problem is that anyone can think that they justify any action by claiming it meets the expectations of a higher truth. That’s the justification for 9/11 and 7/7, for the Crusades, for Auschwitz, for the troubles in NI, for Anders Behring Breivik's murderous orgy, for discriminating against people who are different, for discriminating against people who are the same (but it can't be admitted)...... – and they all know that they are right, they all know that they are acting only in response to the highest, morally justified, indisputable motives – and the only control we have is the supremacy of the state (or vigilantes and then who controls the vigilantes?).
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think there are cases where secular law can require the seal broken.
Certainly there are none that the Catholic Church would accede to. Some states may have such laws but almost all Catholics priests would go to prison rather than break the seal - ever.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
In the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) there are no guidelines for the secrecy of confessions of specific sins. The matter is covered by the rubric in the Prayer Book:
"The secrecy of a confession is morally absolute for the confessor, and must under no circumstances be broken."
So I would assume that a priest of the Episcopal Church would not disclose the content of a confession involving the abuse of children.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
From the Irish Central link above a comment on the story points out that all this happened in Northern Ireland:
quote:
Patrick Roberts, Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady were in Northern Ireland, NOT Ireland. 37 years ago the Royal Ulster Constabulary attempted to arrest Smyth but were stymied by Brady who sent Smyth to Ireland to avoid arrest. You are also misinformed about Brady's current responsiveness on the issue. It is non-existent which is why the Pope sent Cardinal Sean O'Malley from Boston to Armagh in recent weeks to force him to comply
The first part of the documentary dealt with Fr. Green, in Donegal, Diocese of Raphoe. Fr. Brendan Smyth, the second priest reported on did indeed minister in Belfast, as well as Dublin, and the States. I think Brendan Boland, himself, was in Dundalk at the time of his abuse. He speaks of a car trip, where children from Belfast and Cavan where gathered up by Smyth for a Bed and Breakfast trip to Dublin.
North or South the Church is still the Church in Ireland - in fact, whether Church of Ireland or the Catholic Church. The Church of Ireland has at least one cross-border diocese, I think?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
A priest who hears something which is not under the seal of confession as in any ordinary conversation would be required to do the same as any other citizen in this position.
For those who say they have little experience of confession it is unwise to 'pontificate' on the subject.How many serial sexual abusers would be likely to use the confessional ? It is not the case any longer,if indeed it ever was,that Catholics run regularly to confession to tell the priest everything.
If a person does go to see a priest to make a confession,the priest is there to help that person see whether what is burdening them is indeed a sin.Sometimes 'sins' are not really sins at all.The priest is there also to suggest how the person might improve in their relation ship with God and if the priest is satisfied that the person is truly sorry (or is at least in this imperfect world trying to be genuinely sorry) then he is empowered in God's name to forgive them their sins. Again for those who are personally unfamiliar with confession the priest wwould not normally know who the person confessing is.Since the confession is heard anonymously how could the priest report it ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The first part of the documentary dealt with Fr. Green, in Donegal, Diocese of Raphoe. Fr. Brendan Smyth, the second priest reported on did indeed minister in Belfast, as well as Dublin, and the States. I think Brendan Boland, himself, was in Dundalk at the time of his abuse. He speaks of a car trip, where children from Belfast and Cavan where gathered up by Smyth for a Bed and Breakfast trip to Dublin.
North or South the Church is still the Church in Ireland - in fact, whether Church of Ireland or the Catholic Church. The Church of Ireland has at least one cross-border diocese, I think?
The point being made in the response to the link was that Sean Brady was instrumental in Smyth being sent to Ireland to avoid arrest by the RUC. From there he went to America. This could be seen as perverting the course of justice.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Anselmina:
quote:
The Church of Ireland has at least one cross-border diocese, I think?
It has three.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why has this man not been sacked? If this were a headteacher s/he would have been sacked immediately their non-action came to light.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why has this man not been sacked?
Because only the Vatican can sack him.
It seems pretty clear that the Catholic Irish laypeople who don't know the man and are reacting to the news would sack him if they could. (This isn't a Protestants v Catholics issue; it's laity vs Vatican with the Irish politicians doing what they always do and looking for some cheap popularity).
Why do the Vatican not want to sack him ?
His crime was to put obedience to his superiors above his moral sense (on the assumption that he had the moral sense to know that his course of action/inaction was morally wrong).
One suspects that the Vatican isn't ready to embrace the philosophy that disobedience or dissent can be justified by moral sense.
If you believe that the organisation that writes the rulebook is inspired by God, that Canon Law is the codification of infallible papal teaching on matters of morals, what possible justification for breaking the rules could there ever be ?
The point about "times have changed" is not that sexual abuse of children wasn't a crime then. It's that deference to people in positions of authority was greater. (As was the deference adults expected from children).
If 1970s doesn't seem that removed in time, consider that if this is a genuine trend, then clearly those organisations most "behind the times" would have greatest expectations of such deference.
There are two betrayals of trust in these cases - the abuser betrays the trust of the child, and the church apparatchiks (?) who cover things up betray the trust of the people.
The Vatican's response seems to me lacking, not so much in what is said or not said about the abuse, but in what is said or not said about the covering-up.
Perhaps they want to believe that in the particular case of the Catholic church, deference and obedience to superiors is appropriate ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm struggling to put my feelings in to words but there's just a gut reaction of horror within me that anybody could have the right to hear of something as evil as child abuse without having to report it to the state-appointed authorities.
The right?!? The terrifying duty. Many priests surely have paid a horrible price for this attempt to instantiate Divine mercy, and I'm not just talking about those who were killed for keeping silent.
Oh yes, I'm sure you're right that it's a terrible burden for priests to bear; but I consider it more terrible that a child abuser is not turned in to the police.
I also agree that if the sanctity of the confessional was removed then fewer abusers would confess. But I don't like the special treatment being given to one specific religious group; the Catholic confessional seems to be privileged over any other faith / belief system's confessional arrangements, am I right?
And there's also the wider point that perhaps the special privilege given to the Catholic confessional (combined with the strong emphasis on obedience to the institution) encourages a mind-set that can end up leading to cover-ups like the one that started this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Confessing sins like adultery (which are not crimes), fine; but confessing crimes, especially those as damaging as sexual abuse, certainly not.
Again, confession does not equal absolution. A thoroughly contrite heart however does. And yes, there is something greater there than you and I, the God who will look at a child abuser or for that matter at the man who has murdered millions, and if they only truly repent in their days on earth, will accept them as saints into heaven. [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm struggling to put my feelings in to words but there's just a gut reaction of horror within me that anybody could have the right to hear of something as evil as child abuse without having to report it to the state-appointed authorities.
The right?!? The terrifying duty. Many priests surely have paid a horrible price for this attempt to instantiate Divine mercy, and I'm not just talking about those who were killed for keeping silent.
Oh yes, I'm sure you're right that it's a terrible burden for priests to bear; but I consider it more terrible that a child abuser is not turned in to the police.
I also agree that if the sanctity of the confessional was removed then fewer abusers would confess. But I really don't like the special treatment being given to one specific religious group; the Catholic confessional seems to be privileged over any other faith / belief system's confessional arrangements, am I right?
And there's also the wider point that perhaps the special privilege given to the Catholic confessional (combined with the strong emphasis on obedience to the institution) encourages a mind-set that can end up leading to cover-ups like the one that started this thread.
EDIT - sorry for the previous mangled post. Please ignore!
[ 04. May 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Anglican church of Australia has done quite a bit of work on confessional and child sexual abuse.
Private confession for sexual abuse stipulates the following guidelines for absolution:
quote:
Guidelines for the Hearing of Confessions and the Granting of Absolution with special reference to Child Sexual Abuse
1. Care must be taken when a penitent comes to confession that the confession is heard and absolution is pronounced according to an authorised rite of the Church.
2. The granting of absolution in confessions involving child sexual abuse is reserved to priests holding a special licence or authority from the bishop.
3. All confessions involving child sexual abuse are to be referred forthwith to a priest holding the bishop's licence to administer absolution in such cases. In other words the priest (unless specially licensed) must decline to pronounce absolution and refer the matter on.
4. The penitent is to be given clear direction to seek help and counselling from people qualified to do so.
5. Priests holding the bishop’s licence are to receive appropriate training and to be properly informed about what professional help is available.
6. Absolution must be withheld until the priest is satisfied that there is genuine repentance and, apart from exceptional circumstances, until the penitent has reported the matter to the police or other appropriate authority .
The confessional is sealed by canon law but there seem to be some odd exceptions that I can't quite get my head around. e.g. I think there are cases where secular law can require the seal broken.
Evensong, thankyou for citing the above.
There is a tension in our church at the moment about the seal of the confessional. The most disturbing thing is that the bishops will not support a priest who refuses to divulge the contents of a confession, although I have checked with our Prof Standards Director about whether refusing to testify in court (say) would mean inability to continue to function as a priest.
I think the general rule of thumb (and the peace I have made) is that you withhold absolution until the appropriate moves have been made. So for example, if someone came to me and confessed to murder, I would make it a condition that we immediately go to the police before granting absolution... However, if then called on to testify in court what happened in that whole confessional exchange from my perspective would be under the seal. I would be willing to go to prison for that.
Those who have come to me for confession I always preface the time by saying that I am not able to absolve child abuse and that if it is part of what they are bringing then certain steps need to happen.
As someone has said above though, the reality is that those who come for confession, especially in Anglican circles, come from a genuine desire for reconciliation and are willing to do what is necessary to have peace with God. That generally excludes child abusers, most of whom are unrepentant, and is unlikely to include people who have committed crime.
Having said that, I am learning to expect the unexpected... With all the child protection risk management with which you get inculcated, you really never expect anyone will come forward. Yet someone did come to me, walking in off the street last year, and reported abuse which was hairraising and which destroyed his life. When you see the damage of child sex abuse by clergy, it is unmistakable and horrifying. I never thought I would have to make a report, but that's what had to happen. Thank God the priest concerned was no longer active, and no longer abusing children (in fact he was dead - which was not so good in terms of seeing justice done).
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
