quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
Nowadays counsellors have to disclose any information they may, albeit inadvertently, receive about terrorism, child abuse...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I believe legal counsel have responsibility to report child abuse just like anyone else, with the legal privilege of client-solicitor confidentiality not applying in many jurisdictions. And of course anyone anywhere should have full obligation and responsibility to report such things. Priests, ministers, lawyers, medical people.

---

Except that most jurisdictions don't recognize misprision of felony as a criminal offense any more, except in the case of individuals with a specific (usually professional) responsibility to report offenses. So "anyone anywhere" doesn't "have full obligation and responsibility to report such things", at least not in the legally actionable sense of "obligation and responsibility".

Confidentiality and privilege aren't just some quaint custom held over from earlier times. They're maintained for specific professions because society holds that the functioning of those professions are critical to social well-being and that not extending privilege will severely hamper their ability to work. For instance, most Western legal systems hold that the accused (or even those liable to be accused) have both a right to competent legal counsel and a right against self-incrimination. There doesn't seem to be any way accommodate either of these rights if a person's legal counsel is obligated to be an informant against his clients.

Medical privilege exists for similar reasons. The idea that seeing a doctor could lead to the patient being the subject of idle gossip or being reported to law enforcement would discourage many from seeking medical assistance in a timely manner, and society has held that a competently functioning medical system is more important than gossip or giving the police a convenient short-cut.

Bringing it back to the OP, the question then becomes whether privilege between clergy and confessor (confessee?) falls into a similar situation. Not privileging such communications would doubtless be discouraging in the same way lack of privilege would discourage anyone from exercising their right to legal counsel, so it fits in that regard. The only other question is whether confession fulfills a socially valuable function, like allowing citizens to exercise their legal rights or having a functional medical system. I'm not seeing it, but if I were a believer I might have more insight on the matter.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The legal issues must be separated from the issues of a child in danger, and we need to separate out the issue of current risk from past, and also be cognizant that abuse being in the past as said by a person is not necessarily accurate. The social value of lawyers might be another thread

General rule of thumb: people don't go off to consult a lawyer, doctor, mental health professional, priest etc to freely disclose, they are doing it from a perception of risk, or someone put them up to it. At least that's the wisdom from those who do therapy with
 

---

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :
 
I suppose that if priests were legally obliged to report any confessions of the abuse of children to authorities, then penitents would be unlikely to confess this sin. (And would not therefore be obliged to confess it, canonically, since the form of the sacrament had been tampered with by the state.)

Fortunately, most confessors would gladly follow S. John Nepomucene to his watery death in the Moldau rather than break the seal, so such legislation would be essentially meaningless.
 

---

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.

---

I don't understand this, sorry.

What do you mean by trumps other laws?

What does it say about disclosure?

anyone help by unpacking what it means? (And I post as a member of the Church of England!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

In terms of the law, Anglican canon law is part of the law of England and trumps any other laws about disclosure.

---

I don't understand this, sorry.

What do you mean by trumps other laws?

What does it say about disclosure?

anyone help by unpacking what it means? (And I post as a member of the Church of England!)

---

quote:

---

It is unlawful to require a person to give evidence if the giving of such evidence requires that person to break a law of the land. Because the proviso to Canon 113 of the 1603 Canons is unrepealed, it has equivalent status with the law of the land. So to ask a priest to break the seal is unlawful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But the very idea of confessional seal and the absolute privilege of it (if it is true) is frankly mostly a completely spurious issue and fails to take into account more than simple minded legalistic ideas. We should expect more problem solving and loving responses.

I think there must be some priests and ministers intelligent enough to work through the terrible things people at risk to harm others such that they do not personally violate the confessionaL, but properly work through with the confessing person such that the risk is handled properly, i.e., safety plans are put in place, children and others at potential risk are protected. Is it too much to ask, that clergy do a little thinking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If anyone is party to any evidence that amounts to a disclosure they are bound by law to declare it. Don't worry about ancient laws from 1603, think of the child you are bound to protect. Think too of those who have been affected (and their legal teams) if it becomes clear that you have failed to pass such things on

Which side would God have you come down on, bearing in mind Jesus' words about causing
children to stumble and millstones around necks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Exactly.

Childen's safety now trumps an adults supposed spiritual state every time.

I fail to see why the 'sanctity' of the confessional comes first.

If there is a conflict between the two there should be no contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]So you get a situation where the children are no safer than they were because the Priest never discovers the risk anyway, and the usage of confession is impaired because those who need it most are wary of being completely honest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:

How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]

1. No confessor that I know would allow a child molester to confess his sins, be given penance, and then walk out of the booth absolved without attempting to get him to surrender to an appropriate authority.

2. Threaten him with going to the cops, and you've just made a lie of the confessional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:

How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]So you get a situation where the children are no safer than they were because the Priest never discovers the risk anyway, and the usage of confession is impaired because those who need it most are wary of being completely honest.

---

I can see the sense (to an extent) or your argument but unfortunately our chums in the RCC have given it all the worst possible example by protecting child molesters and bombers over the years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:

How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?

---

I suspect for the first question, none. I suspect all those who are saying that the seal should be ignored either aren't clergy or belong to churches or traditions within them that don't practice confession in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, you do your damndest to get the person to turn themselves in, or failing that, to withhold absolution on grounds of impenitence and meanwhile keep after the person.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped:
Since then we make it clear that if the confesser goes on to abuse the confidentiality of confession himself ( eg by lying publicly about it), that will automatically free us to tell the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A question:

How many of the people who are advocating violating the confessional seal practice individual confession? Conversely, how many of those who are defending the seal do not practice individual confession?

---

I suspect for the first question, none. I suspect all those who are saying that the seal should be ignored either aren't clergy or belong to churches or traditions within them that don't practice confession in that way.

---

This is the essential point, I think. If your theology doesn't include penance as a sacrament, with the theology that implies, at least in the cases of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and (to an extent) Anglicanism, then the "sanctity of the confessional" is at best, something that might be generally useful, but can sometimes be put aside for a greater good, or, at worst, a ridiculous idea that serves only to shield people from the appropriate justice of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be useful to remind ourselves that, in many places throughout history (and now), that the appropriate justice of the state is not something in which one would wish to be involved. A list of countries is available upon application.

---

This is something that should be repeated again, and Again and AGAIN.

Where would our current obsession with money laundering have stood with Jews trying to get their life savings out of Nazi Germany, Ugandan Asians trying to save something of their wrecked businesses from Amin's Uganda, or Syrians trying to escape either side in the Syrian civil war now?

It is good and prudent to have a cautious distrust even of fairly worthy states such as one's own, yet alone foreign ones.

[ 27. April 2013, 06:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably a priest in a church that does practice confession in this way would fear eternal damnation if they broke the seal? Which fear should prevail, fear of God or fear of the state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be useful to remind ourselves that, in many places throughout history (and now), that the appropriate justice of the state is not something in which one would wish to be involved. A list of countries is available upon application.

---

This is something that should be repeated again, and Again and AGAIN.

Where would our current obsession with money laundering have stood with Jews trying to get their life savings out of Nazi Germany, Ugandan Asians trying to save something of their wrecked businesses from Amin's Uganda, or Syrians trying to escape either side in the Syrian civil war now?

It is good and prudent to have a cautious distrust even of fairly worthy states such as one's own, yet alone foreign ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Our Child Protection Policy in my CofE Church says that before any of our priests hear confession for the first time, they are first required to tell the person in question that while confidentiality is to be expected in most matters, there are things that they may be required by policy and law to report to the appropriate authorities. We say this, not to scare them, but so that they are aware that we do not believe the seal of the confession to be absolute, and that they cannot complain that there was an expectation of absolute confidentiality in making their confession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably a priest in a church that does practice confession in this way would fear eternal damnation if they broke the seal? Which fear should prevail, fear of God or fear of the state?

---

Neither.

Care for the children should prevail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
[QUOTE]This is the essential point, I think. If your theology doesn't include penance as a sacrament, with the theology that implies, at least in the cases of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and (to an extent) Anglicanism, then the "sanctity of the confessional" is at best, something that might be generally useful, but can sometimes be put aside for a greater good, or, at worst, a ridiculous idea that serves only to shield people from the appropriate justice of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Second, if a victim names his/her molester should you turn the molester in. There is a major problem here. While a victim names the molester it still only amounts to hearsay. You do not have first hand knowledge and probably will not have corroborating evidence. The most you can do is to encourage the victim to go to the authorities with his/her story and offer continuing support for him/her. I would also make a referral to a person that specializes counseling victims of sexual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Enoch

Just a couple of comments about the examples your gave.

First, should a confessor turn in a 16 year old boy for having fornication with a 15 year old girl?

Some states would not consider this statutory rape because the age of consent is 14, or if it is 16 there is an exception if the partners are only a couple of years apart.

Second, if a victim names his/her molester should you turn the molester in. There is a major problem here. While a victim names the molester it still only amounts to hearsay. You do not have first hand knowledge and probably will not have corroborating evidence. The most you can do is to encourage the victim to go to the authorities with his/her story and offer continuing support for him/her. I would also make a referral to a person that specializes counseling victims of sexual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Our Child Protection Policy in my CofE Church says that before any of our priests hear confession for the first time, they are first required to tell the person in question that while confidentiality is to be expected in most matters, there are things that they may be required by policy and law to report to the appropriate authorities. We say this, not to scare them, but so that they are aware that we do not believe the seal of the confession to be absolute, and that they cannot complain that there was an expectation of absolute confidentiality in making their confession.

---

Is this a parish policy, a diocesan policy, or a Church of England policy?

Are possible penitents provided with a list of offenses up front? If so, who created the list?

---

quote:

---

According to Canon 113 of 1603 there is one exception in relation to what is
known as the Seal of the Confessional. The relevant part of that Canon reads
as follows: Provided always, That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity. In Australian law there is no provision for a person to be executed because of concealing a crime of which
that person has knowledge. Therefore this exception to the Seal of the Confessional is not applicable in Australia. In other words, under the terms of that Canon the Seal is absolute.
The Canon Concerning Confessions 1989

---

quote:

---

it is important that people with special training and expertise should handle such matters. It is therefore recommended that the granting of absolution in such cases be reserved to priests holding a special licence or authority from the Bishop. This would mean if a priest
heard a person making confession involving child sexual abuse that priest (if not an authorised priest) would be bound to say to the
penitent, “I am not authorised to pronounce absolution, however I will facilitate an authorised priest to hear your confession for this
purpose”.

---

quote:

---

The seal of the confessional still applies, but if that happened I would withhold absolution and require him to tell the police what he had told me before offering even the possibility of God's forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It's worth pointing out, to those who don't do sacramental confession, that the penitent does not confess his/her sins TO a priest.

They confess to God. The priest is a witness who speaks on God's behalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Enoch

1. My standard is that if I hear that the person is considering future harm to another person, I do have the duty to warn, but I am a trained mental health counselor so I am not necessarily under the seal of confession.

2. As a pastor, I would say if a molester confesses that he has trouble keeping his hands off children, I would one: tell the person he is not able to commune until he addresses his problem.

3. I would also do what I can to prevent him from being where children will be. The federal government does require reporting of known abuse of children. I guess if I were confronted with this, I would feel compelled to report it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE] Exclamation Mark, would your readiness to notify the police only apply to possible sexual offences against children, or would it include other sorts of abuse - e.g. financial abuse of the elderly? Or do you feel you should shop anyone, e.g. a shoplifter, somebody who told you they were intending to riot to celebrate the death of a former Prime Minister, or somebody you thought was fiddling their taxes? And do you tell people what your take is on this before counselling them, or do they only find out afterwards?

---

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?

---

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]With hindsight and in the calmer light of day, that question is now regarded as improper.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it depends on where you live.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

It raises a very difficult situation in regards to the seal of the confessional.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps it might be possible to make the person report it themselves as a condition of penance

---

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...

---

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...

---

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.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
A little less sectarianism, if you would be so good.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

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?

---

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

That is why the Church's usual talk of repentance of forgiveness is problematic in this area.

---

No it isn't. Seventy times seven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think it's pretty instructive, btw, that the argument about getting rid of the seal comes from persons of an anti-clerical persuasion rather than professionals in the child protection business.

---

quote:

---

ken: No it isn't. Seventy times seven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Feel free to press the state to persecute us for our beliefs. Semen est sanguis Christianorum.

---

quote:

---

South Coast Kevin: 'The blood of the martyrs is Christianity's seed', I think.

---

quote:

---

Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us. The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think it's pretty instructive, btw, that the argument about getting rid of the seal comes from persons of an anti-clerical persuasion rather than professionals in the child protection business.

---

That's a good point, I think. What is the opinion on this of child protection professionals? That would be an important factor in this discussion, IMO.

On your other point, Gildas, I actually didn't at all have the RCC child abuse scandals in mind when I typed my previous post. After all, it's not as if other churches are all squeaky clean in this regard! I was just focused on the narrow point of how RCC priests deal with (or should deal with) confessions of child abuse, threats of harm etc.

---

quote:

---

Indifferently: Any confessor who discloses anything he has heard puts his soul in jeopardy. It's such a grave offence against God that I would probably count the offending confessor as worse than the paedophile whom he exposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Any confessor who discloses anything he has heard puts his soul in jeopardy. It's such a grave offence against God that I would probably count the offending confessor as worse than the paedophile whom he exposed.

---

quote:

---

Indifferently: I don't know about the Church of Rome's form of absolution, but in the Church of England the Absolution - found in the Visitation of the Sick in the Prayer Book - is quite clear that true repentance is required. Presumably this would include a resolve to make some reparations for the evil committed. If a paedophile confesses hearty repentance and belief in our Lord Jesus Christ and then refuses to hand himself in, he is probably a liar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Indifferently: I don't know about the Church of Rome's form of absolution, but in the Church of England the Absolution - found in the Visitation of the Sick in the Prayer Book - is quite clear that true repentance is required. Presumably this would include a resolve to make some reparations for the evil committed. If a paedophile confesses hearty repentance and belief in our Lord Jesus Christ and then refuses to hand himself in, he is probably a liar.

---

What should the confessor do in this case?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

I guess you would be happy to stay in Omelas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

Here. It's a bit more clear here.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

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

---

Here's canon 983 of the Roman Catholic Church:

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

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

---

What offence would they be committing?

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

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

---

What offence would they be committing?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

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

---

Your self-analysis is spot on
 

---

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

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

---

Here's canon 983 of the Roman Catholic Church:

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

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0