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

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.

Gregor Samsa

gosplan wrote: »

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.

Not that I think that would happen either, but would you mind telling us what would happen?

joseph brand

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

Not surprising. Sure isn't that where priests go to confess their sins. Rape a few children, recite a few 'our fathers'/ 'hail mary's'. Everything's hunky dory.

One is absolved from all their 'sins'. A clean slate.

So, if a priest tells another 'man of the cloth', that he has raped some kids, the bishop is notified and the rapist is subsequently moved on to new pastures. And certain posters here, from the 'other' forum see no problem in that.

Dades

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Just what boards needs another catholic bashing thread.

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.

robindch

gosplan wrote: »

this is an issue promoted to crete a bit of outrage and have a go at the church.

Er, it's the church who were outraged to start with and said they won't submit to state law. And that's what subsequently annoyed people.

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.

fitz0

tfitzgerald wrote: »

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

Yeah, all these atheists are just fundamentalist bigots. It's time the catholics fought back against this institutional abuse, er, state abetted indoctrination, ah... Er, oppression of catholics!

We are the 84% (give or take.)

Galvasean

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Just what boards needs another catholic bashing thread .

Just a thought, but maybe if they stopped being so bloody devious all the time people wouldn't feel the need to criticize them?

marienbad

tfitzgerald wrote: »

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

Not so- more like the catholic church looking for away to feel aggrieved

Galvasean

The RCC issued this statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jXe0x4YdM

doctoremma

Does the "seal of confession" cover any sin? A priest cannot report a man who currently has his wife locked up in a basement, being raped and tortured? A priest cannot report a person who confesses to having built a bomb and is thinking of detonating it in the middle of a city?

marienbad

doctoremma wrote: »

Does the "seal of confession" cover any sin? A priest cannot report a man who currently has his wife locked up in a basement, being raped and tortured? A priest cannot report a person who confesses to having built a bomb and is thinking of detonating it in the middle of a city?

correct