Seal of Confession

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Of could politicians who did the dirty and confessed them to the priest would also be reported!:D

Yes. If politicians are abusing children they should be reported.

Manach

Magic Beans wrote: »

Nobody is stopping them asking God directly for forgiveness.

Yes, but are you likely to receive forgiveness?(based on the underlying assumption of the truth of the RCC )

Manach

bleg wrote: »

But if they didn't, how could the priest live with it and not tell anybody about it? It sounds completely immoral and unethical to me.

The priest is bound under oath which he agree to. The Seal of confession is part of this. If he cannot follow this, then he should leave the priesthood.
[implicit in this oath is they are are not bound to abuse their position of authority to destroy innocent lives, which would not have blighted so many - but that is going OT ]

gimmebroadband

28064212 wrote: »

The seal of confession should be an irrelevancy to the law. Confessing to a priest should have no more protection from the law than confessing to your friend. The law should not mention anything about the Catholic act confession. It should state that people are legally bound to report (certain types of) crime.

“In confession … the penitent speaks directly to Christ, forgiveness always comes directly from God,” he explained, “while the priest is the witness to this holy action beween God and the Penitant and is the voice of Christ declaring the absolution.”
Absolution is the moment when the priest, through the work of Christ, absolves the penitent from his or her sin.
It is during absolution where priests say they are amazed and humbled at being able to see the effects of this healing right in the confessional.
“I can physically see in the person’s face or hear it in their voice the sense of peace after I give absolution,” Father Kelber said. “There is a comfort that comes from being able to hear the words.”


http://www.catholicanchor.org/wordpress/archives/3173

Asry

dvpower wrote: »

This is why I can't fathom the 'priests would rather die than violate the seal' attitude.

This has got to do with church rules, not faith. The assured confidentiality of the confession is probably a good thing in general, since it allows people to talk freely, but if there is a greater good (like saving a victim from further abuse) then some dilution of it seems reasonable.

Absolutely, it's the rules themselves and has nothing to do with Jesus or faith or anything like that. The confidentiality of confession is the aspect of confession that I'm arguing for, in that it allows people to speak freely. Perhaps some dilution of the seal would be reasonable, yes, but either you're confidential or you're not. I can't see how they would manage a dilution rather than a complete bringing down of the whole thing, but that's just my own limitations. I'm not saying it can't be done.

Obviously I think that child abuse is wrong and dreadful and should never be enabled but confession is a different kettle of fish entirely to other things, and as I said, is not concerned with laws or courses of justice or anything like that. It's just the person making the confession themselves, and their salvation that's concerned.

Although, I would also like to add that seeing as the person is in confession in the first place is probably a pretty good indication that they know what they've done but not what to do about it. Or maybe that they're just practice-running the admission of guilt, knowing that they're safe in doing so.

Kate10

If a priest chooses to break the law because of personal religious belief, then he should (and soon thankfully will!) face the consequences.

Religion is not a defense to a criminal or civil suit. You do not get a get out of jail free card because you claim that your act was mandated by your God or your religious group.

gimmebroadband

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. If politicians are abusing children they should be reported.

I wasn't talking about abusing children, but underhand dealings over the years that may have been criminal!

28064212

gimmebroadband wrote: »

“In confession … the penitent speaks directly to Christ, forgiveness always comes directly from God,” he explained, “while the priest is the witness to this holy action beween God and the Penitant and is the voice of Christ declaring the absolution.”
Absolution is the moment when the priest, through the work of Christ, absolves the penitent from his or her sin.
It is during absolution where priests say they are amazed and humbled at being able to see the effects of this healing right in the confessional.
“I can physically see in the person’s face or hear it in their voice the sense of peace after I give absolution,” Father Kelber said. “There is a comfort that comes from being able to hear the words.”


http://www.catholicanchor.org/wordpress/archives/3173

...I have no idea what you're trying to say here (or rather, why you're saying it in response to my post).

Irish law should state that you are legally required to disclose information on certain types of crime. And that's all it should say. It should not say "oh, it's ok if it's part of a religious ceremony, then you don't have to do it", anymore than the laws against assault include an allowance for punching in the face for religious reasons

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I wasn't talking about abusing children, but underhand dealings over the years that may have been criminal!

But mandatory reporting will be limited to only a very narrow set of serious offences. I don't think there was any proposal to make 'underhand dealings' reportable.

Asry

Kate10 wrote: »

If a priest chooses to break the law because of personal religious belief, then he should (and soon thankfully will!) face the consequences.

But it's currently not law that if someone tells you in private about something illegal that they've done that you will also be doing something illegal by not reporting it to the police.

I can see the benefits of such a situation, but what that reminds me of is post-war East Germany, and Stasi informers.

gimmebroadband

28064212 wrote: »

...I have no idea what you're trying to say here (or rather, why you're saying it in response to my post).

Irish law should state that you are legally required to disclose information on certain types of crime. And that's all it should say. It should not say "oh, it's ok if it's part of a religious ceremony, then you don't have to do it", anymore than the laws against assault include an allowance for punching in the face for religious reasons

I am talking in the spiritual sense as this is a Christian fourm. Also, wouldn't anything confessed to a priest be hearsay??

28064212

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I am talking in the spiritual sense as this is a Christian fourm.

I'm not questioning the spiritual side of confession. This discussion is about the legal consequences of it

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Also, wouldn't anything confessed to a priest be hearsay??

No more than anything 'confessed' to a plumber. And the plumber should be treated exactly the same in law

ironingbored

chughes wrote: »

I must say that I find it hard to understand the logic that a clerical child abuser isn't ex-communicated but his confessor is if he informs the police.

Eh...welcome to the Roman Catholic Church.

gimmebroadband

28064212 wrote: »

I'm not questioning the spiritual side of confession. This discussion is about the legal consequences of it


No more than anything 'confessed' to a plumber. And the plumber should be treated exactly the same in law

The penitent could confess to a priest anonymously!!

28064212

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The penitent could confess to a priest anonymously!!

And he could confess to a plumber anonymously. A priest (or plumber) obviously can't be prosecuted for knowledge they didn't have

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Also, wouldn't anything confessed to a priest be hearsay??

No. How?

gimmebroadband

28064212 wrote: »

And he could confess to a plumber anonymously. A priest (or plumber) obviously can't be prosecuted for knowledge they didn't have

What's a plumber got to do with absolving sins, only a Priest can absolve sins, that's the whole point of Sacramental confession!!

gimmebroadband

dvpower wrote: »

No. How?

I believe I asked a question, waiting to see some answers, and you answered with another question!!

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I believe I asked a question, waiting to see some answers, and you answered with another question!!

I answered your question:

My answer wrote:

No.

I asked a follow up.

My question wrote:

How?

Edit: It was also covered earlier in the thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73297669&postcount=33

28064212

gimmebroadband wrote: »

What's a plumber got to do with absolving sins, only a Priest can absolve sins, that's the whole point of Sacramental confession!!

Already covered this ground:

28064212 wrote: »

I'm not questioning the spiritual side of confession. This discussion is about the legal consequences of it

Two situations:

1. Child molester A confesses to a priest that he has molested in the past and will molest in the future
2. Child molester B confesses to a plumber that he has molested in the past and will molest in the future

State law should treat the plumber and the priest the same. Canon law can treat them however the church wants

gigino

raymon wrote: »

What would Jesus say.?

He would be disgusted that these perverts are being protected and shielded

The catholic church protects perverts in many ways and forms .

When did god or Jesus approve these Canon laws ?

Any priest that hides behind Canon law is a coward, and complicit in the abuse

+1. As said before, Silence is complicity in the rape itself. I remember many years ago when I was a teenager the lads saying what would you get at confession for a hand job, and it was more that just a joke that it was a few bags of tayto and a mars bar. The priests were sexually and emotionally starved, and some - but not all - of them had a well deserved "reputation", even though nobody dared complain offically as that would have been a very anti-catholic thing to do. I do not think it goes on the anything like the same extent nowadays because people are better educated and live less "in fear" of the powerful catholic church. In them days married couples were even told by Priests not to use condoms or contraception. Nobody criticised the Priest, you were going to hell if you did. What a shameful organisation.

mikedone

It strikes me that it would be very difficult to secure a conviction against a priest for non-disclosure of what he was told in the confessional. Firstly he is not allowed to reveal what he hears and neither is the penitent ergo the law is unenforceable.
The other scenario being that the penitent turns him/herself into the authorities and in the course of his/her statement claims to have confessed to Fr. X. Do the gardai go and arrest Fr X and charge him with withholding information in which case he exercises his right to silence and it's hard to see how a conviction could be secured using the evidence available in those circumstances.

Tea 1000

gigino wrote: »

+1. I remember many years ago when I was a teenager the lads saying what would you get at confession for a hand job, and it was more that just a joke that it was a few bags of tayto and a mars bar. The priests were sexually and emotionally starved, and some - but not all - of them had a well deserved "reputation", even though nobody dared complain offically as that would have been a very anti-catholic thing to do.

This is exactly my point earlier. Common knowledge, why? It couldn't have been if the only words spoken about it were in the Confession box. Therefore targeting Confession as the root of the problem is ignoring the bigger picture.

28064212

mikedone wrote: »

It strikes me that it would be very difficult to secure a conviction against a priest for non-disclosure of what he was told in the confessional. Firstly he is not allowed to reveal what he hears and neither is the penitent ergo the law is unenforceable.

Incorrect. In fact, he will be legally required to reveal it. Unfortunately for him, the church he belongs to will expel him for revealing it, but that's a problem for him and his church.

You might as well say a gang member is entitled to stab someone because if he doesn't, he'll get thrown out of the gang

dvpower

mikedone wrote: »

The other scenario being that the penitent turns him/herself into the authorities and in the course of his/her statement claims to have confessed to Fr. X. Do the gardai go and arrest Fr X and charge him with withholding information in which case he exercises his right to silence and it's hard to see how a conviction could be secured using the evidence available in those circumstances.

The gardai question the priest. The priest says he isn't able to disclose what was said in the confessional, but the priest, knowing that he has committed an offence, admits it.
Simple.

gimmebroadband

Discussion about the Irish Goverment and the seal of confession at the following link!

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=580328

who the fug

dvpower wrote: »

The gardai question the priest. The priest says he isn't able to disclose what was said in the confessional, but the priest, knowing that he has committed an offence, admits it.
Simple.

And if the priest says no comment all through the interview and it goes to court would you convict him on the word of a pedo.

mikedone

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. In fact, he will be legally required to reveal it. Unfortunately for him, the church he belongs to will expel him for revealing it, but that's a problem for him and his church.

You might as well say a gang member is entitled to stab someone because if he doesn't, he'll get thrown out of the gang

I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the seal merely that it's very nature makes any law which requires that it be broken impossible to enforce

raymon

gimmebroadband wrote: »

“In confession … the penitent speaks directly to Christ, forgiveness always comes directly from God,” he explained, “while the priest is the witness to this holy action beween God and the Penitant and is the voice of Christ declaring the absolution.”
Absolution is the moment when the priest, through the work of Christ, absolves the penitent from his or her sin.
It is during absolution where priests say they are amazed and humbled at being able to see the effects of this healing right in the confessional.
“I can physically see in the person’s face or hear it in their voice the sense of peace after I give absolution,” Father Kelber said. “There is a comfort that comes from being able to hear the words.”


http://www.catholicanchor.org/wordpress/archives/3173

Sounds like witchcraft to me

28064212

mikedone wrote: »

I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the seal merely that it's very nature makes any law which requires that it be broken impossible to enforce

No it doesn't, anymore than a law against speeding is impossible to enforce because a motoring club has a rule that you must speed all the time