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

ironingbored

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-we-wont-break-seal-of-confession-to-report-sex-abuse-3092495.html

What an heinous organisation the Catholic Church is.

Also, I found this phrase particularly disturbing and potentially bordering on the antisemitic:

Fr Sean McDonagh of the Association of Catholic Priests, which represents 800 clergymen, warned last night: "I certainly wouldn't be willing to break the seal of confession for anyone -- Alan Shatter particularly."

Sonics2k

Charming bunch of folks aren't they.

Personally I think they should be arrested for assisting a crime.

qrrgprgua

ironingbored wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-we-wont-break-seal-of-confession-to-report-sex-abuse-3092495.html

What an heinous organisation the Catholic Church is.

Also, I found this phrase particularly disturbing and potentially bordering on the antisemitic:

Hold on a second.... The seal of confession is a corner stone of ALL priests of ALL church's. Go an get a sound bit from the orthodox church or Coptic or Armenian.. Its not dictated by Rome or Vatican or Pope..

And nobody has the authority to change this... Its not about covering up abuse.

Anyway think about the logic.. If you knew the priest would report you would you bother to confess..

So point the figure elsewhere. Once somebody opens up in confession there are many means of helping them.. Outting them in confession is not one of them. On this the church can't do anything. They can't change the seal of confession

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hold on a second.... The seal of confession is a corner stone of ALL priests of ALL church's. Go an get a sound bit from the orthodox church or Coptic or Armenian.. Its not dictated by Rome or Vatican or Pope..

And nobody has the authority to change this... Its not about covering up abuse.

Anyway think about the logic.. If you knew the priest would report you would you bother to confess..

So point the figure elsewhere, this is not a catholic Church rule.

Oh ffs. Will you stop apologizing for these people who allowed Priests to get away with child abuse for ****ing decades.

What the hell would your Jesus say about that.

Shameful behavior by so called "Gods people". :mad:

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

H On this the church can't do anything. They can't change the seal of confession

YES THEY CAN!

/leaves thread before I get ban for calling out these ignorant disgraceful excuses for human beings.

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh ffs. Will you stop apologizing for these people who allowed Priests to get away with child abuse for ****ing decades.

What the hell would your Jesus say about that.

Shameful behavior by so called "Gods people". :mad:

How do you know they even confessed their crimes in confession?

There have been many attacks on the seal of confession and many priests have died for it. Its not going to change and its not about protecting or covering up anything.

Dades

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not going to change and its not about protecting or covering up anything.

I agree that's probably true.

It's a tough one, this.

Dades

Also - calm down, people.

Roger Hassenforder

if a kiddie fiddler confesses his transgressions to a priest in a gloomy box and think's he's off the hook, and the priest is of the opinion this along with a few meaningless platatides is sufficient in the eyes of their sky fairy, both need to have a word with my rusty melon spoon.

If a Mooney (just for example, i dont know have they as much form as the RCC) rapes your child, and confesses his sins to his 'priest', would you like if he wasnt obliged to report it to the proper authorities, by which i mean those that can visit judgement and appropriate punishment in the here and now?

Go Shatter.

MagicMarker

If a priest hears a confession where a person admits to abusing a child and doesn't make an effort to report the crime, then quite simply the priest should be locked up with the abuser.

NO excuse.

Wereghost

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a loophole whereby, if the seal of confession causes a crisis of conscience for a priest, he can confess this to another priest - or is it specifically a bishop? - and waive his own right to confidentially, thus theoretically allowing his confessor to take action.

GLaDOS

If someone is sexually abusing children and another person knows about it and does nothing, it's putting other children at risk, as well as potential further abuse of previous victims.

How anyone can reconcile with that that is beyond me.

ShooterSF

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Anyway think about the logic.. If you knew the priest would report you would you bother to confess..

Are you serious? Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you should continue to offer them protection.

Gbear

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

Knasher

qrrgprgua wrote: »

How do you know they even confessed their crimes in confession?

I doubt they would be fighting so hard for an exemption from the law if people weren't confessing their crimes to them.

qrrgprgua

Knasher wrote: »

I doubt they would be fighting so hard for an exemption from the law if people weren't confessing their crimes to them.

Well since it is the Atheism/Agnostic forum I can be hardly surprised about the anti-religous back lash..

I am just astonished who the tread started hitting back at the catholic church .. without doing the homework to see exactly what is the seal of confession.

The subject of seal of confession is emphatic. There is no discussion on breaking it.

ShooterSF

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well since it is the Atheism/Agnostic forum I can be hardly surprised about the anti-religous back lash..

You are seriously deluded if you think people's outrage at other people's unwillingness to report sex offenders requires them to be part of a religion!

qrrgprgua

ShooterSF wrote: »

You are seriously deluded if you think people's outrage at other people's unwillingness to report sex offenders requires them to be part of a religion!

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?

ShooterSF

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?

No we dont and no I don't think they would confess. Does that change the fact that they wouldn't report it if they did? Also no. It's more to do with offering to do what;s right even if the occasion doesn't occur. If I said the same that I wouldn't report someone who told me and then defended it with the notion that if I said I'd report them they'd never tell me you would surely see how stupid that line of thinking is.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well since it is the Atheism/Agnostic forum I can be hardly surprised about the anti-religous back lash..

I am just astonished who the tread started hitting back at the catholic church .. without doing the homework to see exactly what is the seal of confession.

The subject of seal of confession is emphatic. There is no discussion on breaking it.

It's got nothing to do with Religion, of any kind.

If someone confesses to a crime in the confessional, then the Priest should provide the information to the Gardai, as is his duty as a citizen of this country.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of Catholicism is that you confess your sins. Surely any "good" Priest would do this, per their belief.

Stop trying to fob this off as anti-religion, when it's actually just how society should be.

who the fug

How are they going to get a conviction, a one on one conversation

Is the state going around bugging confession boxes

qrrgprgua

ShooterSF wrote: »

No we dont and no I don't think they would confess. Does that change the fact that they wouldn't report it if they did? Also no. It's more to do with offering to do what;s right even if the occasion doesn't occur. If I said the same that I wouldn't report someone who told me and then defended it with the notion that if I said I'd report them they'd never tell me you would surely see how stupid that line of thinking is.

Look I don't want to tie the horror of child abuse up with confession. Priests are not looking to cover up abuse in this area, But the seal of confession is an absolute seal that is the very fabric of faith for centuries in all the Church's. And over different periods there have been advances from government's and kings to try and make priests break it. The priest who confesses does so "in persona Christi".

The law the Irish government is trying to pass is flawed in this area.. Do priests in Jails have to report the abuse that could be heard by inmates serving sentences for abuse?

The Church is extremely focused on never allowing abuse to return, Every suspicion is reported to the gards. Every Bishop knows full well they can't cover abuse up morally or lawfully... But confession has nothing to do with covering abuse, is part of our faith, its sealed, it goes beyond Catholic church/Rome/Pope, its emphatic and absolute.



"O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I have offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life."

oldrnwisr

Gbear wrote: »

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

In general, no. The crime of misprision of felony was removed with the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act in 1997.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well since it is the Atheism/Agnostic forum I can be hardly surprised about the anti-religous back lash..

I am just astonished who the tread started hitting back at the catholic church .. without doing the homework to see exactly what is the seal of confession.

The subject of seal of confession is emphatic. There is no discussion on breaking it.

A couple of points.

First of all, this legislation doesn't mention the seal of confession. It does not single out the catholic church. It simply makes it an offence to withhold information. It is the priests rather who are placing themselves outside the law by adhering to a doctrine over the welfare of children and the law.

Secondly, this isn't the first piece of legislation to include such a clause. Section 42 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 states:

"A designated person who knows, suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information obtained in the course of carrying on business as a designated person, that another person has been or is engaged in an offence of money laundering or terrorist financing shall report to the Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners that knowledge or suspicion or those reasonable grounds."

This legislation also makes it a crime to withhold information regarding money laundering even if it is obtained in the confessional.

When this bill was passed there wasn't a peep out of the church regarding the seal of confession. Strange don't you think?

qrrgprgua

oldrnwisr wrote: »

When this bill was passed there wasn't a peep out of the church regarding the seal of confession. Strange don't you think?

There wasn't a peep for Orthodox church or church if Ireland.. Its not strange because no church can change the seal of confession... It goes without saying. The media are just looking to report and asked if priests would break the seal of confession to tie this back to their own agenda as if this were another example of covering up abuse...

Strange how for example they never asked one of the many Orthodox priests in Ireland about this?

oldrnwisr

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Strange how for example they never asked one of the many Orthodox priests in Ireland about this?

The article doesn't say anything about any of the priests quoted as being asked for their comment. The article gives the impression that these priests responded to the publication of the draft legislation proactively with their opinions. The quote from the ACP spokesman seems to support this. It doesn't appear as if the media or the Independent in this case sought any comment but rather received comments from outraged priests.

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There wasn't a peep for Orthodox church or church if Ireland.. Its not strange because no church can change the seal of confession... It goes without saying. The media are just looking to report and asked if priests would break the seal of confession to tie this back to their own agenda as if this were another example of covering up abuse...

Strange how for example they never asked one of the many Orthodox priests in Ireland about this?

Just on that, do the other branches of Christianity have the seal of confession? I can only find reference to the seal with regards to the Catholic church.

Turtwig

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Church is extremely focused on never allowing abuse to return, Every suspicion is reported to the gards.

But not one confession. They'll cooperate with vague suspicions but not with possibly incriminating evidence. The mind boggles.

Knasher

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There wasn't a peep for Orthodox church or church if Ireland.. Its not strange because no church can change the seal of confession... It goes without saying. The media are just looking to report and asked if priests would break the seal of confession to tie this back to their own agenda as if this were another example of covering up abuse...

Strange how for example they never asked one of the many Orthodox priests in Ireland about this?

Wait, so are you essentially saying that you don't have a problem with the law, you just don't expect the priests will comply with it? It's just the media making a point out of the fact that the priests won't comply.

Or do you think they deserve to be exempted from it?

Run_to_da_hills

These guys really think that they are untouchable and are different from the law of the land. The Irish government really needs to show some teeth against this cult.

Cedrus

There is a straightforward way around it (that sounds like an Irish solution if ever there was one).

Canon Law
A sinner confesses their sin, the priest absolves the sin as it is within their power, the sin is then sealed by the confession. The priest is compliant with canon law.
Civil Law
A civilian admits guilt of a crime to second civilian who happens to be a priest, having no power to absolve a crime, the second civilian reports knowledge of said crime to the relevant bodies (Gardai, Social Services etc.). The priest is then compliant with civil law.

Failing to comply with this new law is a crime not a sin and can only be dealt with by the civil authorities.

mikhail

Gbear wrote: »

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

(IANAL) I think it's not trivial - mostly no, but there are circumstances where it crosses over into assessory after the fact. They're explicitly making it illegal for the crime of child abuse (and rape in general, I think) at the moment. Hence all the trouble.

mikhail

My personal position on this whole mess is render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

Gregor Samsa

koth wrote: »

Just on that, do the other branches of Christianity have the seal of confession? I can only find reference to the seal with regards to the Catholic church.

Anglicans and Lutherans have it too. But qrrgprgua's assertion that it's "a corner stone of ALL priests of ALL church's (sic)" is patent nonsense. Most Protestant churches don't recognise the need for an intermeditory between people and God, and therefore they confess their sins directly in prayer.

marienbad

A non event really- there is no point in getting hot under the collar as it is simply unenforceable . Alan Shatter knows this but he is not going to publicly give priests a get out of jail card or write an exemption into law for them and thus set an impossible precedent.

It is not the first time a law has been passed that on the surface ignores the confessional seal so I don't know why the fuss this time.

Unless it was deemed a good time to jump on ''cold place for catholics'' bandwagon and generate another false example of anti catholic bias by the government

ShooterSF

marienbad wrote: »

A non event really- there is no point in getting hot under the collar as it is simply unenforceable . Alan Shatter knows this but he is not going to publicly give priests a get out of jail card or write an exemption into law for them and thus set an impossible precedent.

It is not the first time a law has been passed that on the surface ignores the confessional seal so I don't know why the fuss this time.

Unless it was deemed a good time to jump on ''cold place for catholics'' bandwagon and generate another false example of anti catholic bias by the government

No law is enforceable. However being caught breaking it is punishable. I really don't get this anti-catholic bull, if it was a law against racial discrimination and a golf club came out saying that their rules haven't let black people in since it's foundation and that it's leaders will continue to put their own rules ahead of the law we'd all be just outraged. These people are coming out and saying they will ignore the law of the land and not even one of our stupid laws!
There should have been a fuss everytime they refused to recognise state law because it's that attitude that led to them not reporting internal cases of abuse along time (well not very along) ago but they don't seem too quick to learn their lesson, probably because the state has been to happy to take their lashes for that one.

marienbad

ShooterSF wrote: »

No law is enforceable. However being caught breaking it is punishable. I really don't get this anti-catholic bull, if it was a law against racial discrimination and a golf club came out saying that their rules haven't let black people in since it's foundation and that it's leaders will continue to put their own rules ahead of the law we'd all be just outraged. These people are coming out and saying they will ignore the law of the land and not even one of our stupid laws!
There should have been a fuss everytime they refused to recognise state law because it's that attitude that led to them not reporting internal cases of abuse along time (well not very along) ago but they don't seem too quick to learn their lesson, probably because the state has been to happy to take their lashes for that one.

Same situation all over the western world , to my knowledge there has never been a successful prosecution against a priest . And the point made earlier that unless it was confidential abusers would not confess anyway is a very valid one.

Lets fight the fights we can win comes to mind.

ShooterSF

marienbad wrote: »

Same situation all over the western world , to my knowledge there has never been a successful prosecution against a priest . And the point made earlier that unless it was confidential abusers would not confess anyway is a very valid one.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean we should give up on what's right and no it's not about catching criminals it's about taking away protection for them. Perhaps not being able to get their crimes off their chest could see them turn themselves in instead. Who knows?

Lets fight the fights we can win comes to mind.

And that's where we differ I guess. I'd prefer to fight every wrong, winnable or not.

Cedrus

marienbad wrote: »

Same situation all over the western world , to my knowledge there has never been a successful prosecution against a priest.

Is this because it is

1. Technically impossible N
2. Ethically undesirable /unnecesary N
3. There just hasn't been the political will Y

marienbad wrote: »

And the point made earlier that unless it was confidential abusers would not confess anyway is a very valid one.

Confession of a sin in private is of no value to the greater society, it just gives succour to the *******'s who then feel that they have been forgiven and are back to a clean slate.

marienbad wrote: »

Lets fight the fights we can win comes to mind.

No Passaran! If it's worth doing it's worth doing well. Don't let the barstads grind you down. spring to my mind.

marienbad

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean we should give up on what's right and no it's not about catching criminals it's about taking away protection for them. Perhaps not being able to get their crimes off their chest could see them turn themselves in instead. Who knows?



And that's where we differ I guess. I'd prefer to fight every wrong, winnable or not.

But you are reading this as it they have been given a free pass they hav'nt and when pressed on it Alan Shatter said as much. Technically they have no protection.

But will we prosecute - no , as it is virtually impossible to prove. The good thing is the minister did'nt rise to the bait.

Thats the real politik of the matter and there are bigger issues facing us so lets not give more ammunition to the anti secular agenda than we must.

robindch

Knasher wrote: »

I doubt they would be fighting so hard for an exemption from the law if people weren't confessing their crimes to them.

I don't believe that's the reason they're fighting this one. Instead, it seems to make more sense from the perspective of political power + authority.

The church claims it's acting on behalf of the creator of the universe, the biggest authority there could be in this inflexibly hierarchical, authoritarian worldview. The church uses that claim to derive and assert its absolute authority and rules. If the state, however, then comes along, like it has here, and asserts its own authority over the church's rules, and specifically, that (a) one representative of the deity must grass on another one (to an authority that both believe is less absolute) and (b) to do so in something like confession, the sanctity of which the church has vigorously asserted for centuries, then the church's claim to have ultimate authority over its own rules and its representatives, let alone the wider population, takes a serious political hit.

In summary, how can the church credibly claim to be an absolute authority defending an absolute tradition if it has to submit to a higher authority, in this case, the state? It begins to look a whole lot less absolute than they'd like.

As it was pointed out/implied above somewhere, the seal of the confessional seems to be less of an issue when the confessing party is a serious financial criminal, and are therefore unlikely to be a priest.

Alternatively, the church could have just failed to notice the implications of the law being passed

Doc Farrell

Two quick points.
Anonymity. The priest doesn't necessarily know who is in the confessional. Although I guess he could guess if he was bored. Any of you could go to any confessional and pretend to be me, that doesn't mean that you are, unless you are a trained international playboy/assassin.
Refusal of absolution. This leads onto other unpleasantries which journalists would do well to brush up on.

ShooterSF

Sorry but what ammunition are we giving the anti-secular agenda? That if you decide that your(the church, royal your and all that) rules are above the state's ones, regardless of the results, we won't be happy. Well if they use that as ammo, fire at will, because there is no common ground for us to meet.

marienbad

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry but what ammunition are we giving the anti-secular agenda? That if you decide that your(the church, royal your and all that) rules are above the state's ones, regardless of the results, we won't be happy. Well if they use that as ammo, fire at will, because there is no common ground for us to meet.

It looks to me as this is an argument that the church are trying to fuel, knowing the outcome- that the minsiter will not say they are exempt and also will not prosecute- but it is an easy way to start portraying the state as following an anti catholic agenda .

The big issue coming up is education - that is the fight we must win , and this red herring is just part of setting the backdrop to that battle.

celticcrash

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hold on a second.... The seal of confession is a corner stone of ALL priests of ALL church's. Go an get a sound bit from the orthodox church or Coptic or Armenian.. Its not dictated by Rome or Vatican or Pope..

And nobody has the authority to change this... Its not about covering up abuse.

Anyway think about the logic.. If you knew the priest would report you would you bother to confess..

So point the figure elsewhere. Once somebody opens up in confession there are many means of helping them.. Outting them in confession is not one of them. On this the church can't do anything. They can't change the seal of confession

Sorry but it is about the Covering up of mass abuse of children.

ShooterSF

marienbad wrote: »

It looks to me as this is an argument that the church are trying to fuel, knowing the outcome- that the minsiter will not say they are exempt and also will not prosecute- but it is an easy way to start portraying the state as following an anti catholic agenda .

The big issue coming up is education - that is the fight we must win , and this red herring is just part of setting the backdrop to that battle.

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?

marienbad

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.

Penn

Anyone else tempted to go to confessions, make up some horrific crimes and finish with "Good thing you can't tell anyone about this. Now that I've gotten this off my chest, I feel good enough to do it again"

tfitzgerald

Just what boards needs another catholic bashing thread . The confidentially of confession should not be broken .

gosplan

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.

Penn

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Just what boards needs another catholic bashing thread . The confidentially of confession should not be broken .

Why not? Because it's more important that child abusers have the right to confess their crimes to a priest in secret than it is for a priest to be able to potentially prevent a child abuser from abusing again?

Sonics2k

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Just what boards needs another catholic bashing thread . The confidentially of confession should not be broken .

Why not?
Because it's "traditional"?

That's really what it all comes down to, that and the CC refusing to accept that they are not above the laws of the land, and this isn't the first time it's happened.