Priests: We won’t break seal of confession to report sex abuse

doctoremma · 27-04-2012 2:13pm

marienbad wrote: »

correct

What about if the bombmaker told the priest he was going to detonate it the church? The priest would have to let that happen?

MrPudding · 27-04-2012 2:13pm

robindch wrote: »

In any case, I don't remember things turning out very well for anybody, the last time the church felt itself above state law in respect of child abusers.

You must have a short memory. It worked out very well for some child rapists.

MrP

marienbad · 27-04-2012 2:17pm

doctoremma wrote: »

What about if the bombmaker told the priest he was going to detonate it the church? The priest would have to let that happen?

Remembering back to my dim distant past the priest still could not break the seal, But he could of course Rambo up I suppose and prevent it himself ( I think

)

One of Hitchcock's lesser films -( I Confess with Mongomery Clift I think) was about this very dilemma with a murderer confessing.

Delirium · 27-04-2012 2:19pm

doctoremma wrote: »

What about if the bombmaker told the priest he was going to detonate it the church? The priest would have to let that happen?

I wouldn't think so as I don't think you can receive absolution for future sins.

Which is something that confuses me as to why if some confesses to a future crime that the priest can't report him/her to the authorities. No sin has been comitted so it wouldn't be a breach of the seal of confession.

tfitzgerald · 27-04-2012 2:21pm

Dades wrote: »

If posters are bashing anything its the church's notion that one of it's laws supersedes the law of the State.

This notion of "catholic bashing" is a nonsense and reeks of false oppression. Clearly you know there's a specific issue at play here.

Please don't try and tell me that it's not church bashing it is . A few priest out of thousands do something wrong and it's all the churches fault there is never anything about all the good the church has done . Not church bashing . I hope you were to type that with a straight face

doctoremma · 27-04-2012 2:22pm

marienbad wrote: »

Remembering back to my dim distant past the priest still could not break the seal, But he could of course Rambo up I suppose and prevent it himself

What an image

(if flippancy can be excused for a moment).

marienbad · 27-04-2012 2:25pm

doctoremma wrote: »

What an image (if flippancy can be excused for a moment).

Flippancy is a required trait when having these discussions as the other alternative is madness

ShooterSF · 27-04-2012 2:34pm

marienbad wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

No this is about setting a principle. One where the church are not above state laws. This law isn't out to target them, they have just decided to kick up a fuss about it and they need putting in their place before we get onto education. How can we hope for a secular state when a church openly flaunts our laws?

But the principle has been set, Alan Shatter refused to give them an exemption (a) in the text of the law and (b) in answer to a direct question asking if they were immune and he said no.

Now unless you want a specific law enacted against the confessional seal I don't know how much more he can do.

I'd like to see anyone who openly flaunts the law punished.

Dades · 27-04-2012 2:37pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Please don't try and tell me that it's not church bashing it is . A few priest out of thousands do something wrong and it's all the churches fault there is never anything about all the good the church has done . Not church bashing . I hope you were to type that with a straight face

Eh, please don't rephrase my post. The phrase of yours I responded to was "catholic bashing". Big difference between the church as an organisation and a catholic as an individual.

So yes, it is church doctrine people are criticising here.

marienbad · 27-04-2012 2:39pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Please don't try and tell me that it's not church bashing it is . A few priest out of thousands do something wrong and it's all the churches fault there is never anything about all the good the church has done . Not church bashing . I hope you were to type that with a straight face

You must be joking ! Year after year as these scandals were unfolding every news programme or currents affairs programme or late late show prefaced every discussion with something along the line of '' let us acknowledge the many thousands of good priest etc etc ''. It was never ending and became quite sickening after awhile.

And it was'nt a few priests either - the number of priests that abused directly was probably relatively small, then you have the numbers that were involved in the cover ups and finally those priests that new about it but did nothing . These are no longer small numbers .

Dave! · 27-04-2012 2:44pm

koth wrote: »

doctoremma wrote: »

What about if the bombmaker told the priest he was going to detonate it the church? The priest would have to let that happen?

I wouldn't think so as I don't think you can receive absolution for future sins.

Which is something that confuses me as to why if some confesses to a future crime that the priest can't report him/her to the authorities. No sin has been comitted so it wouldn't be a breach of the seal of confession.

That would be an ecumenical matter

Anyone see that episode last night?

tfitzgerald · 27-04-2012 2:53pm

marienbad wrote: »

You must be joking ! Year after year as these scandals were unfolding every news programme or currents affairs programme or late late show prefaced every discussion with something along the line of '' let us acknowledge the many thousands of good priest etc etc ''. It was never ending and became quite sickening after awhile.

And it was'nt a few priests either - the number of priests that abused directly was probably relatively small, then you have the numbers that were involved in the cover ups and finally those priests that new about it but did nothing . These are no longer small numbers .

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this subject . At least the people on here could do is admit that the church world wide has done untold good deeds

doctoremma · 27-04-2012 2:59pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this subject . At least the people on here could do is admit that the church world wide has done untold good deeds

Is that how it works? You can some bad stuff as long as you've done other good stuff?

Cossax · 27-04-2012 2:59pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this subject . At least the people on here could do is admit that the church world wide has done untold good deeds

I'm confused as to what that has to do with anything in this thread?

tfitzgerald · 27-04-2012 3:02pm

Dades wrote: »

Eh, please don't rephrase my post. The phrase of yours I responded to was "catholic bashing". Big difference between the church as an organisation and a catholic as an individual.

So yes, it is church doctrine people are criticising here.

Really . I think it's anything to do with the catholic church and it's followers that people here have problems with

marienbad · 27-04-2012 3:15pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this subject . At least the people on here could do is admit that the church world wide has done untold good deeds

and you might admit that it has also done untold damage

tfitzgerald · 27-04-2012 3:21pm

I have no problem admitting that some of the clergy have done terrible things that they should be ashamed of. But that is not the catholic church its just a minority of it's members . And these crimes were covered up . But again that was a minority . The majority of the clergy has being above approach . And should be thanked for their good deeds

robindch · 27-04-2012 3:28pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

But that is not the catholic church its just a minority of it's members.

That's the discredited "a few bad apples" excuse -- it didn't wash in Abu Ghraib and it doesn't wash in the Vatican either.

Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil is a cogent, interesting and up-to-date account of how corrupt organizations, such as the Vatican and the US Army's prison service, corrupt their members, or allow them to corrupt themselves.

ironingbored · 27-04-2012 3:30pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I have no problem admitting that some of the clergy have done terrible things that they should be ashamed of. But that is not the catholic church its just a minority of it's members . And these crimes were covered up . But again that was a minority . The majority of the clergy has being above approach . And should be thanked for their good deeds

I refer you to this scandalous document drawn up by none other than Benedict XVI a.k.a Josef Ratzinger:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

So the man at the pinnacle of the church is in that minority who contributed to the cover up of child sexual abuse.

doctoremma · 27-04-2012 3:31pm

robindch wrote: »

That's the discredited "a few bad apples" excuse -- it didn't wash in Abu Ghraib and it doesn't wash in the Vatican either.

Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil is a cogent, interesting and up-to-date account of how corrupt organizations, such as the Vatican and the US Army's prison service, corrupt their members, or allow them to corrupt themselves.

Here is a TED talk by Zimbardo whcih discusses the Lucifer Effect:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

tfitzgerald · 27-04-2012 3:37pm

I have told myself to stay away from this forum because it really does upset me reading what disparaging things people have to say about my church . So once again we will have to agree to disagree . I have a faith that I am proud of . We all make mistakes . I wish everyone here the best of luck

I was going to say god bless but I better not

MagicMarker · 27-04-2012 3:42pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I have told myself to stay away from this forum because it really does upset me reading what disparaging things people have to say about my church . So once again we will have to agree to disagree . I have a faith that I am proud of . We all make mistakes . I wish everyone here the best of luck

I was going to say god bless but I better not

''Your'' church assisted in the abuse of quite a lot of children, and to make matters worse ''your'' church doesn't seem to give a toss. Defending it with ''we all make mistakes'' is utterly deplorable tbh.

ShooterSF · 27-04-2012 3:49pm

Even the best of us can make horrible mistakes. However, our actions to rectify those mistakes are our only redemption. The church has always put it's own protection and that of it's assets above rectifying it's wrong doing. Those are not the actions of someone who accepts they have made mistakes.

doctoremma · 27-04-2012 3:53pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

''Your'' church assisted in the abuse of quite a lot of children, and to make matters worse ''your'' church doesn't seem to give a toss. Defending it with ''we all make mistakes'' is utterly deplorable tbh.

Tim Minchin may have this covered. Link via Pharyngula and NOT SAFE FOR WORK:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/tim_minchin_serenades_the_pope.php

If the message isn't clear, the lyrics are here:
http://lyrics.wikia.com/Tim_Minchin:The_Pope_Song

Dubhlinner · 27-04-2012 4:16pm

Just wondering how this law applies to counsellers.

Ie if a patient had previously confessed to child abuse to his therapist, would he now have to be reported?

Also does this law only apply to child abuse? If someone admits to armed robbery or murder is the priest required to report the person?

Can see the crisis this puts the church in. They can't ignore the law because if someone is caught and it later transpires the guy told a priest, the priest gets put away.

On the other hand if they're to follow the law then they can't really call themselves Roman Catholic Priests.

Will this law actually protect any children?

Would be interesting to know stats on what happens with people who tell a priest they've abused in confession - are they more likely to repeat offend because their conscience is clear? (I doubt it because absolution requires genuine remorse, an I would have assumed that means not do it again)

There's also the possibility the priest may convince them to give themselves up, that to feel absovled in themselves they must face the rule of law.

I don't know if either of these scenarios are any way reflective or reality, and I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but I wouldn't rule out the latter, and if it happens, it would be a bad thing to remove it.

Kila · 27-04-2012 4:23pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not about not reporting sex offenders This argument seems to the in vogue as the media tries to tie it to the seal of confession..

The fact is nobody knows if an offender ever confessed abusing?!! do we? And if for arguments sack tomorrow hypothetically the priest could report sins// Do you think anyone would confess?

gosplan wrote: »

This is just a load of media guff.

The popular image to protray is that a sex offender will confess crimes to teh priest who'll give him three hail mary's and absolve him.

Not what would happen at all.

I don't believe in the seal of confession by the way, but this is an issue promoted to crete a bit of outrage and have a go at the church.

I refer you both to the case of Michael McArdle, a former priest who was convicted of child abuse, and confessed (in confession) over 1500 times (over a number of years) that he was abusing children. He was given the metaphorical three hail mary's, and said himself that he felt absolved after each time - "it was like a magic wand had been waved over me". See this article in the Times as a jump off point: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0901/1224303291837.html

In short, what you are saying is wrong, and it's clear that you did no research before saying it. People have confessed abuse in the past, and have continued to abuse. Priests have ignored the confessions and given absolution. Both of these facts were accepted as true in the legal proceedings surrounding the case.

Doc Farrell · 27-04-2012 4:30pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I have told myself to stay away from this forum because it really does upset me reading what disparaging things people have to say about my church . So once again we will have to agree to disagree . I have a faith that I am proud of . We all make mistakes . I wish everyone here the best of luck

I was going to say god bless but I better not

It makes no difference what anyone on this forum has to say on the sacrament of penance and reconciliation as the seal cannot be broken. Nobody can change that. If posters were to do a little homework on these three actions;
Anonymity of the confessional
Refusal of absolution
Reasons for excommunication relating to confession
It might help them to understand why they are wasting their time typing words on this subject.
The seal simply cannot be broken no matter what your view on it is, in favor or against. All the 'what if' scenarios in the world won't change that. One can get annoyed as one likes, write thousands of words on how I am wrong but the end result, unless the priest wishes to be instantly excommunicated, is that the seal cannot be broken.

Dubhlinner · 27-04-2012 4:40pm

Kila wrote: »

I refer you both to the case of Michael McArdle, a former priest who was convicted of child abuse, and confessed (in confession) over 1500 times (over a number of years) that he was abusing children. He was given the metaphorical three hail mary's, and said himself that he felt absolved after each time - "it was like a magic wand had been waved over me". See this article in the Times as a jump off point: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0901/1224303291837.html

In short, what you are saying is wrong, and it's clear that you did no research before saying it. People have confessed abuse in the past, and have continued to abuse. Priests have ignored the confessions and given absolution. Both of these facts were accepted as true in the legal proceedings surrounding the case.

That is shocking. He estimated approx 1500 confessions to approx 30 priests

So each priest on average was told 50 times by this guy he's abused a child.

PErhaps he is exaggerating in how many he told, or at least got a kick out of confessing. Its seems strange none of them would have taken the law into their own hands.

Ellis Dee · 27-04-2012 4:46pm

Gbear wrote: »

In general, is it a crime to be aware of a crime and not tell the police?

There used to be a crime called "misprision of an offence" on the statute books, but it has either been removed from them or is being ignored. It would generally be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone really knew and understood that a crime was being committed, unless there was a degree of collusion, in which case the person who knew could be charged as an accomplice and not just for not grassing.:)

If the kiddy-fiddler church was really serious about respecting the civil law in addition to practising its mumbo-jumbo with its own members, it would make it abundantly clear that no person confessing to something that is an offence under civil law will be given absolution until they have handed themselves in and confessed to the secular authorities.:)

The present system only gives criminals some relief from the anguish that regrets over their own misdeeds are causing them and does nothing to have criminals brought to book.:D

joseph brand · 27-04-2012 5:06pm

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this subject . At least the people on here could do is admit that the church world wide has done untold good deeds

By doing 'good deeds', the church converts more and more ejits followers. The Vatican's purse grows larger along with their influence.

Kinda like 'Untouchables'. Which is ironic, seeing as they are known for touchi. . ah you know the rest.

Priests: We won’t break seal of confession to report sex abuse

Comments