|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Seal of the Confessional
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
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?
EM, your first point doesn't reflect what is taught about the Sacrament of Penance by Roman Catholics (nor the Orthodox, nor Anglicans, to the best of my knowledge).
As to the hypothetical, I have several family members who were sexually abused. The one that I have discussed this issue with feels that changing Penance in such a way as to make it unused and unusable is not worth what would be gained, assuming that anything would be, which is a big assumption in their opinion.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
EM
I would not say that my second point is separate from my third point.
If the person is actively seeking out children, and admits to it, then yes the duty to warn comes into play. If the person recently committed molestation, then the duty to report comes into play. The one is not exclusive of the other.
Since the question was raised I have been doing some research of my denomination's policies. My denomination continued to refer to the Unitarian Universalist Safe Congregation program. The UUA has laid out a very detailed plan on how to deal with sexual abusers. If anyone wants to read it, here is a link:
http://www.uua.org/safe/handbook/index.shtml
The good news in all of this is that if a person actively seeks treatment, there is around a 16% recidivism rate over all.
In most states they use a three tier classification system to determine just how safe someone is likely to be.
Level One is for those who are least likely to reoffend. These people may have had sex with someone under age in the heat of the moment. Generally, it was a one time incident, not likely to recur.
Level Two are those who have had a history of abuse but have responded well to treatment. While not likely to reoffend, certain precautions need to be followed. (I think the guidance would be based on your denomination's policies, and any court ordered stipulations).
Level Three are those who have have multiple offenses and have not responded well to treatment. There are generally court ordered restrictions which must be adhered to and there are strong policies that must be in place too.
While it is possible to minister to Levels I and II within the context of a congregation, I would say Level Three takes on a different form of ministry, if a level III desires to be ministered to.
When it comes to the safety of the congregation, caution is the best policy, though.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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!
No, that is not accurate.
'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
[ 29. April 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The good news in all of this is that if a person actively seeks treatment, there is around a 16% recidivism rate over all.
Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it and tradition is mixed anyway. In any case neither the building nor the purple nor the time confer any authority whatsoever - intentionality is the key. If thats what you think you're doing then that's what you are doing.
2. Why then do some people have such a high view of priests that suggest a priest is never not a priest? With this belief, any interaction is by definition a sacramental one.
3. Please provide evidence for this. It's certainly not the case in one mainline uk denomination - any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse. If you don't report it and have grounds to suspect that the person will offend again - and does - then you'll be liable to be sued yourself.
4. I repeat my question from earlier. Would it change for you leo if the person being abused was a member of your family or known to you? Can you sit there and tell me that you'd respect the "confessional" when someone close to you was being harmed or might be harmed?
[ 29. April 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you, on the other hand, withhold absolution, you can't be sure anything will change and you may, in fact, burn all the boats. The person has nothing to lose and goes out to offend again and again and again.
We agonise over confidentiality while precious children's lives are blighted and broken: some will die. Just look at the reports from North wales.
[ 29. April 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
[QUOTE]
1. EM, your first point doesn't reflect what is taught about the Sacrament of Penance by Roman Catholics (nor the Orthodox, nor Anglicans, to the best of my knowledge).
2. As to the hypothetical, I have several family members who were sexually abused. The one that I have discussed this issue with feels that changing Penance in such a way as to make it unused and unusable is not worth what would be gained, assuming that anything would be, which is a big assumption in their opinion.
1. Well perhaps a change is needed.
2. What would be gained is the posibility that an abusr is brought to court and children aren't subjected to their actions in future. I'd take the risk on behalf of God any day of the week. Why not you?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Why then do some people have such a high view of priests that suggest a priest is never not a priest? With this belief, any interaction is by definition a sacramental one.
Oh my God, read a book why don't you?!
It is true that a priest is never not a priest. That doesn't mean that every meal he eats is the Eucharist. The intention to celebrate the sacrament must be there, otherwise every time I washed my hair I'd be re-baptizing myself. Good grief.
--------------------
"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 Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Why then do some people have such a high view of priests that suggest a priest is never not a priest? With this belief, any interaction is by definition a sacramental one.
Oh my God, read a book why don't you?!
It is true that a priest is never not a priest. That doesn't mean that every meal he eats is the Eucharist. The intention to celebrate the sacrament must be there, otherwise every time I washed my hair I'd be re-baptizing myself. Good grief.
The operative word is "interaction" - do you interact with your hair????
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
No, the operative concept is intention. That is one reason why verbal formulae are important. The penitent must intend to confess sins and the priest must intend to grant absolution. Otherwise, no dice.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
1. EM, your first point doesn't reflect what is taught about the Sacrament of Penance by Roman Catholics (nor the Orthodox, nor Anglicans, to the best of my knowledge).
2. As to the hypothetical, I have several family members who were sexually abused. The one that I have discussed this issue with feels that changing Penance in such a way as to make it unused and unusable is not worth what would be gained, assuming that anything would be, which is a big assumption in their opinion.
1. Well perhaps a change is needed.
2. What would be gained is the posibility that an abusr is brought to court and children aren't subjected to their actions in future. I'd take the risk on behalf of God any day of the week. Why not you?
1. I disagree, and I am not aware of any evidence that supports the assertion that a change is needed.
2. But will that happen? Why is there an expectation that someone will confess child sexual abuse, knowing that the confessor will report them to the secular authorities, who would not already be prepared to surrender to the authorities? So, if the seal is dispensed with, people simply won't confess child sexual abuse unless they are prepared to surrender to the authorities. Hence the set of child sexual abusers who would be apprehended by the authorities over and above the number of those who would be in any event is the null set. What am I missing?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...
4. I repeat my question from earlier. Would it change for you Leo if the person being abused was a member of your family or known to you? Can you sit there and tell me that you'd respect the "confessional" when someone close to you was being harmed or might be harmed?
Isn't that another version of the question that the presiding officers used to put at Conscientious Objector Tribunals in the 1914-8 War,
'So what would you do if a German was about to rape/murder your wife or daughter?'
With hindsight and in the calmer light of day, that question is now regarded as improper.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I had a cappucino this afternoon with a family lawyer friend (former pilgrim) who has dealt with abuse cases and knows the area well; he tells me that he has heard of a case some years ago where the seal of the confessional was regarded askance by the Crown attorney (a drug trafficking case), but that he knows (and he knows lots!) of no situation where there was any hint of sexual abuse cases connected with the confessional.
He told me that he suspects that folk who indulge in such crimes are not frequently found in the confessional booth. He allows the possibility that some clerical offenders might have done so but, again, he knows of no case.
I'm not sure if that helps with the theoretical discussion going on here. Previous threads on the topic have referred to Canadian law, which does not allow for an absolute right to secrecy. While my clergy friends do not like to discuss, even in the most general terms, their work in the confessional, pretty well every cleric I know would be prepared to do time rather than break the seal.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
So, if the seal is dispensed with, people simply won't confess child sexual abuse unless they are prepared to surrender to the authorities. Hence the set of child sexual abusers who would be apprehended by the authorities over and above the number of those who would be in any event is the null set. What am I missing?
This is actually not true. Never underestimate the stupidity of people who, having been explicitly warned, nevertheless go ahead and do it anyway.
I've seen something similar in action. It's as if the clear and detailed warning you give doesn't penetrate the single brain cell they possess. Even if you make them repeat it back to you verbally.
There's always one idiot. And usually quite a few more.
[ 30. April 2013, 00:49: 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
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
So, if the seal is dispensed with, people simply won't confess child sexual abuse unless they are prepared to surrender to the authorities. Hence the set of child sexual abusers who would be apprehended by the authorities over and above the number of those who would be in any event is the null set. What am I missing?
This is actually not true. Never underestimate the stupidity of people who, having been explicitly warned, nevertheless go ahead and do it anyway.
I've seen something similar in action. It's as if the clear and detailed warning you give doesn't penetrate the single brain cell they possess. Even if you make them repeat it back to you verbally.
There's always one idiot. And usually quite a few more.
Perhaps this is the case, although I tend to doubt it, or at least that the population would be other than minuscule. Even so, would it be worth destroying the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance because there's a remote chance you'll catch a very stupid person who is also guilty of child sexual abuse? I'd say no, but perhaps there's some nuance that I'm missing.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, I was only trying to point out the stupidity of the human race. I'm actually in favor of keeping the seal (though doing everything possible to prevent the bugger doing further harm, up to and including spiritual arm twisting and threats)
Ever read the stupid criminal news items? Or the Darwin Awards? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the human race.
So the discussion does have a real world impact.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Leo, there are various studies that are out there. I was referring to a figure that was reported in the Unitarian Universalist Handbook.
Another, more current study suggests it might even be lower: http://www.corrections.com/news/article/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders
Do note, the study is referring to all sex offenders, not just pedophiles. I think if you are so obsessed with pedophiles, you may be overlooking other sex offenders that are out there.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Why then do some people have such a high view of priests that suggest a priest is never not a priest? With this belief, any interaction is by definition a sacramental one.
My priest is always a priest, but when I have dinner at his house, and he hands me a glass of wine, it's not the blood of Christ.
And sure, confession doesn't have to happen in a little box, but that doesn't make every chat you have with a priest into a sacramental confession.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
JeffTL
Apprentice
# 16722
|
Posted
I've thought this one over before. Were I a priest – which I am not, nor do I believe I ever would be – I would go to prison or my grave before breaching the seal of the confessional directly or indirectly. The rubric (in the 1979 BCP) that "the secrecy of a confession is morally absolute for the confessor, and must under no circumstances be broken" means just that – in fact, barring an adjustment in a future Prayer Book, its existence creates the morally absolute seal ipso facto by promising it. Nor should the church interfere with the due process of law by coercing self-incrimination, which could if nothing else impair the penitent's ability to negotiate a plea bargain – one could encourage the penitent to submit to criminal penalties, but not require it or expect such to be done without consulting with an attorney. It sounds like many wise clergy have come to a different conclusion on this than I have, but that's my two cents and how I would tackle the situation.
That said, I've actually wrestled with canon law requirements for abuse reporting myself in the past. I reported my wife's parents for psychological abuse of their children – not because of legal requirements for mandatory reporting, but because I was an officer of the Presbyterian Church at the time and was required to do so by any reasonable reading of canon law, which had a higher moral standing in my mind. For better or for worse I made the report well after my last observation of the behavior, and do not know whether it was ever investigated; my wife and my mother did not want me to make this report, and I allowed myself to be tormented for quite a while about whether to do it or not. Naturally a church officer encountering something in private life is quite different from anything involving confession.
Posts: 49 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you say that the sacrament doesn't work, you are saying that God is unable to forgive sins. Unless you believe that paedophilia is 'the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness, according to Jesus.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you say that the sacrament doesn't work, you are saying that God is unable to forgive sins. Unless you believe that paedophilia is 'the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness, according to Jesus.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you say that the sacrament doesn't work, you are saying that God is unable to forgive sins. Unless you believe that paedophilia is 'the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness, according to Jesus.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Leo, there are various studies that are out there. I was referring to a figure that was reported in the Unitarian Universalist Handbook.
Another, more current study suggests it might even be lower: http://www.corrections.com/news/article/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders
Do note, the study is referring to all sex offenders, not just pedophiles. I think if you are so obsessed with pedophiles, you may be overlooking other sex offenders that are out there.
Not 'obsessed' with paedophiles - that is what this thread is about, isn't it?
As for the study, i found it very interesting. If it is true that 'treatment' can work for some, there should be more of it available. It seems that our courts might be pandering to society's demonisation of these offenders rather than considering what is in their, and society's best interest.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you say that the sacrament doesn't work, you are saying that God is unable to forgive sins. Unless you believe that paedophilia is 'the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness, according to Jesus.
Strawman.
Of course God can forgive sins. He doesn't need the confessional to do it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'Protecting All God’s Children’ 3rd edn. C of E policy
Good bible Leo but no support. Just how much straw have you got there? You just keep building on .....
None of this requires a priestly caste or an operation in a specific times or place. It's actually the responsibility of very believer not the preserve of a few.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]With hindsight and in the calmer light of day, that question is now regarded as improper.
By whom?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Where is the statistical proof for this assertion?
I wish it were true but all the literature currently circulating says that paedophilia is incurable.
That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.
There isn't any proof - at best 16% don't reoffend but that's far from cure, that's control. Paedophiles are like alcoholics - for a life time they are one step away from oblivion.
That's exactly why the confessional doesn't work and can't work in this case. You can apply all the penances and prayers you like, the person efefctively gets carte blanche to go out and do it again - witness the scandals of the RCC. How they can live with themselves I don't know.
If you say that the sacrament doesn't work, you are saying that God is unable to forgive sins. Unless you believe that paedophilia is 'the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which there is no forgiveness, according to Jesus.
Strawman.
Of course God can forgive sins. He doesn't need the confessional to do it.
So does God forgive paedophiles?
And, if so, would the Church be wrong not to?
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. 'Confession' is a sacrament. it is administered in church and the priest wears a purple stole. It takes place at a time advertised publicly or by appointment - it is not ad hoc.
2. A 'pastoral conversation' in the pub or wherever is different.
3. The Safeguarding guidelines are quite specific - only the confession as sacrament has the seal. Pastoral conversations do not.
1. A sacrament can be administered anywhere - presuming you believe confession to be one, which I don't. There's no biblical warrant for it ........ any disclosure in any circumstance is deemed to be reportable in the case of abuse.
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.
James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
quote:
It is in everyone’s interest to recognize the distinction between what is heard in formal confession (however this might take place) which is made for the quieting of conscience and intended to lead to absolution, and disclosures made in pastoral situations. For this reason, it is helpful if confessions are normally heard at advertised times, or by other arrangement, or in some way differentiated from a general pastoral conversation or a meeting for spiritual direction.
'Protecting All God’s Children’ 3rd edn. C of E policy
Good bible Leo but no support. Just how much straw have you got there? You just keep building on .....
None of this requires a priestly caste or an operation in a specific times or place. It's actually the responsibility of very believer not the preserve of a few.
That is not how the majority of Christians interpret those texts - especially when Jesus was speaking the apostles, whose successors are bishops and priests.
--------------------
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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In principle there should be no difficulty for a priest if a member of his own family should confess sacramentally something to him.In the confessional the priest does not recognise any individual by name,but rather simply a penitent.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]That is not how the majority of Christians interpret those texts - especially when Jesus was speaking the apostles, whose successors are bishops and priests.
Not even all anglicans agree with this. The majority may do but that doesn't make it right - in the RCC it simply serves to enforce control.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I VERY broken boy opened up to me outside our God Slot last night, because I told him it was safe to do so.
I didn't realise how true that HAS to be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]That is not how the majority of Christians interpret those texts - especially when Jesus was speaking the apostles, whose successors are bishops and priests.
Not even all anglicans agree with this. The majority may do but that doesn't make it right - in the RCC it simply serves to enforce control.
They may not but the official line as set out in the canons and in Cranmer's rite for the visitation of the sick does.
--------------------
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
BUMP - if I may...
Here is a quote from Rupert Bursell, Chancellor of a diocese or two in the C of E, QC, etc etc...
"It must always be borne in mind by the priest that the ecclesiastical law imposes a strict duty upon him not to disclose any matter communicated to him during sacramental confession"
Bursell adds - "this is not a claim to privilege but a legal obligation imposed by the law of the realm on Anglican priests...the law imposes this duty on Anglican priests"
Thoughts? How then does this relate to confessions of abuse? Say nothing, it would seem.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
Chancellor Bursell's 1990 article on this topic in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal is excellent, if you can get your hands on it. A few thoughts:
1.) It may seem odd that it's the 1603 Canon still in force, when the Canons were revised wholesale in 1969. However, the Archbishops freely admitted that this was because they could not be sure that a new Canon in the same terms would not run contrary to the laws of the realm, as they stood at that point. Rather than tackle the thorny issue, they simply left the 1603 Canon unrepealed. I think we call it 'Anglican Fudge'.
2.) I think we're combining at least two questions here. The first is whether a priest should be obliged (Canon Law) to keep the seal of confessional in all circumstances, whatever the consequences. The second is whether the Civil law should recognise and respect this to the extent that a priest is excused from testifying as a witness.
3.) As I understand this, the 1603 Canon has *equal* (no more no less) force as the law of the land than any other legislation. It is thus subject to the usual rules of statutory interpretation. If the Queen-in-Parliament passes a specific statute obliging priests to reveal certain offences revealed to them in confessional, I would argue that law would bind in precedence to the canon (as a matter of civil law at least - breaking the seal may still be a canonical offence).
4.) I don't think there's been a case in the English courts relating to the seal of confessional in 110 years or so. The case law that I've examined is fairly evenly split between priests being forced to testify or excused from testifying.
5.) I'm rather alarmed at hearing about these policies put in place by certain CofE churches effectively saying that the "seal doesn't exist in this parish". I don't really see how that works; one can't circumvent canon law by a local policy document.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Thank you Man with a stick. That is very helpful.
Does the civil law which could supersede canon law require disclosure of certain offences?
Bursell cites a case "re St Edmunds Chapel, Gateshead 1995" in connection with this - do you know what thats about?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Thank you Man with a stick. That is very helpful.
Does the civil law which could supersede canon law require disclosure of certain offences?
Bursell cites a case "re St Edmunds Chapel, Gateshead 1995" in connection with this - do you know what thats about?
The British civil system is very reluctant (or has been until recently) to criminalise simply 'knowing about something and not reporting it'.
Section 8 of the Treason Act 1554 was a well-known exception to this, but that was repealed about 65 years ago.
Section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 makes it an offence to he enter into or becomes concerned in an arrangement that you suspect facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property. I don't really see how that can apply to the confessional.
The only case I know involving St Edmund Gateshead relates to memorial plaques and 16th Century Catholic Martyrs. It is Chancellor Bursell's diocese however, so he's likely to be more familiar than I...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Thank you for your very helpful insights.
Can I just raise it further. So in the case of serious child abuse there is no legal obligation to report it if heard in the confessional?
This seems to me quite an emotive area - but then where does one draw the line if one allows one thing heard in the confessional to be reported, and who is to say what is 'serious' and what isn't...
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think it depends on where you live. The state law here in Ireland requires that you report it, regardless of how or where or under what circumstances you were told it. It raises a very difficult situation in regards to the seal of the confessional. In the past the advice has been to make it known that there are certain things that cannot be mentioned in the confessional without legal repercussions and the legal requirement to report, therefore breaking the 'seal'. There are many who are very uncomfortable with this though. Perhaps it might be possible to make the person report it themselves as a condition of penance - unless of course you see the act of confession and absolution as covering the effects of your sin as well as the sin itself, which personally I don't buy.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it depends on where you live.
Indeed.
quote:
The state law here in Ireland requires that you report it, regardless of how or where or under what circumstances you were told it.
Is that law on the statute books now? I remember the brouhaha when there was talk of introducing it.
quote:
It raises a very difficult situation in regards to the seal of the confessional.
Well, yes and no. Catholic Canon law remains clear that the seal is inviolable. Catholic Canon Law expects the priest to take the civil consequences of refusing to break the seal. [I'm using Catholic Canon Law as an example as I don't know the first thing about Canon Law in the Church of Ireland! The same may well apply]
quote:
Perhaps it might be possible to make the person report it themselves as a condition of penance
Good advice, but it doesn't change the priest's duty to report in civil law (if that exists in your jurisdiction) - s/he'll still have heard it. The penitent may decide that absolution is not worth the hassle - or find another priest who will absolve him.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Thank you for your very helpful insights.
Can I just raise it further. So in the case of serious child abuse there is no legal obligation to report it if heard in the confessional?
This seems to me quite an emotive area - but then where does one draw the line if one allows one thing heard in the confessional to be reported, and who is to say what is 'serious' and what isn't...
There was a sixteenth/seventeenth century theory that the seal of the confessional does not apply to cases of High Treason, which gained much traction with commentators (though, I hypothesise, incorrectly. As I recall, so does Bursell).
To my knowledge, there's no statute in England mandating the reporting of child abuse discovered in the confessional. Some think that there should be.
If such a law came in, I would advise priests to return to old style confessionals, where they cannot see the penitent. This would make it easier to withstand cross-examination in court without having to choose between excommunication and prison...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Thank you for your very helpful insights.
Can I just raise it further. So in the case of serious child abuse there is no legal obligation to report it if heard in the confessional?
This seems to me quite an emotive area - but then where does one draw the line if one allows one thing heard in the confessional to be reported, and who is to say what is 'serious' and what isn't...
There was a sixteenth/seventeenth century theory that the seal of the confessional does not apply to cases of High Treason, which gained much traction with commentators (though, I hypothesise, incorrectly. As I recall, so does Bursell).
To my knowledge, there's no statute in England mandating the reporting of child abuse discovered in the confessional. Some think that there should be.
If such a law came in, I would advise priests to return to old style confessionals, where they cannot see the penitent. This would make it easier to withstand cross-examination in court without having to choose between excommunication and prison...
There may be no statute but there is a duty of care to do so -- and so possibly prevent more abuse. To disclose is the lsser then of two evils.
I cannot imagine a circumstance where I'd NOT disclose such a thing. I sincerely believe God would be on my side and has been on my side when I've done it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So does God forgive paedophiles?
And, if so, would the Church be wrong not to?
Yes, and Yes. But equally, God tells us not to put ourselves in situations where we know sin is going to be a problem. That includes making sure that paedophiles attend services which generally have no children present, and having members of the church staff/wardens aware and keeping an eye on their behaviour, and someone who knows the situation should sit with them at all times on church property. Generally, if they are truly repentant and wish to change from their behaviour, this will be accepted. They will tell families who invite them around for meals about their problems and work for change. I genuinely believe in the forgiveness of all sins. I also believe that deliberately allowing yourself to be in a place where you are likely to be far more tempted sin is just plain stupid, particularly when it is one that can scar other people for life.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The seal of confessional was not invented so that we could serve it. It was meant to serve humanity. Just like commandments like "thou shalt not kill" were also meant to serve human beings.
Absolutist versions of "the seal must always be maintained" are troublesome because those who advocate adherence without fail, have failed to notice that the seal can and should be violated by the person confessing their risk to others, and the role of the clergy is to help the person confessing to make the most loving decision. Yuo can have your seal and also have the problems dealt with, like paedophilic risk. I realize we've been through this on this thread before. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
The only people who have an issue with the confessional seal are Protestants who play fast and loose with the sacraments as a matter of course and liberals who despise the Church. Divine law is not something to be followed or not on a whim dependent on ones particular political or social prejudices. It takes monumental arrogance to state that God would side with me against the core teachings of his own Church.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
A little less sectarianism, if you would be so good.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The only people who have an issue with the confessional seal are Protestants who play fast and loose with the sacraments as a matter of course and liberals who despise the Church.
Or you could assume good faith and give people dubious about the confessional seal the credit of at least acknowledging that their position is based on genuine thought and prayer, not some knee-jerk opposition to the Catholic Church.
Like no prophet's point above that the confessional seal is meant to serve people, not vice versa. Disagree with that point, fine, but please acknowledge that it's a reasoned, considered position.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Divine law is not something to be followed or not on a whim dependent on ones particular political or social prejudices. It takes monumental arrogance to state that God would side with me against the core teachings of his own Church.
But of course those who think the RCC does confession in a way not required by God, don't think they are breaking the 'core teachings of [God's] own Church'. It's a shame that you haven't yet grasped or can't acknowledge that many Christians don't take everything the RCC teaches as Gospel.
To be blunt, I find it rather abhorrent that a Catholic priest could hear a confession of child abuse perpetration (or a threat of the same) and not feel obliged to report this to the authorities. At least in the UK (and it seems in most countries) there's a duty on all people to contact social services or the police if they feel someone is at risk of harm. I know it's a grey area - how much risk, how much harm? - but why should RCC priests be excused from this duty that everyone else is under?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
