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

BraveInca

Well in my religion I am not permitted to stop at any red lights or allow any impedance to the progress of any vehicle that I am driving. If I run over any pedestrians or cyclists I am not allowed to stop.

This is a cornerstone of my religion and it is absolute and emphatic. Nobody can change it.

Happily, under the constitution, the state guarantees not to endow or favour any religion, so I am entitled to the same immunity (or lack thereof) from state law as my catholic brethren.

robindch

Doc Farrell wrote: »

[...] the seal cannot be broken.

It certainly could be, but whether it will is up to the men in the confessional boxes and their superiors.

I wonder what some or all of the (alleged) 30 confessor priests above must feel like now? Presumably McArdle's continued abusing after his first confession, so there must be priests and bishops out there now who knew what was going on, but chose to do nothing by hiding behind this convenient, ghastly human tradition known as "the seal of the confessional". I wonder how many lives were ruined by their deliberate inaction. Have any of these people come forward to say how appallingly sorry they feel? If they have, I haven't heard it.

Otherwise, well, what a contemptibly corrupt and corrupting organization.

qrrgprgua

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.

There are many things a priest can do in confession if a person admits to abuse. They can advise the person to go to the authorities and even take them there. But they can't break the seal of confession. I see a lot of posts pointing the figure at the catholic church on this.. but it applies to all church's.


The article above is a claim by one priest.. What it doesn't show are the countless thousands of people who get help in confession and who then go on to make amends via handing themselves over authorities. I certainly would not be giving a hail mary to anyone who abused.

tfitzgerald

joseph brand wrote: »

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.

You see I would call this post smart alecy bull****

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There are many things a priest can do in confession if a person admits to abuse. They can advise the person to go to the authorities and even take them there. But they can't break the seal of confession. I see a lot of posts pointing the figure at the catholic church on this.. but it applies to all church's.


The article above is a claim by one priest.. What it doesn't show are the countless thousands of people who get help in confession and who then go on to make amends via handing themselves over authorities. I certainly would not be giving a hail mary to anyone who abused.

Maybe a simple solution would be for the priest hearing the confession to make the penitent give himself up to the civil authorities as part of the penance., and only after that is absolution granted .

In the old days making restitution was always part and parcel of penance

Kila

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There are many things a priest can do in confession if a person admits to abuse. They can advise the person to go to the authorities and even take them there. But they can't break the seal of confession. I see a lot of posts pointing the figure at the catholic church on this.. but it applies to all church's.


The article above is a claim by one priest.. What it doesn't show are the countless thousands of people who get help in confession and who then go on to make amends via handing themselves over authorities. I certainly would not be giving a hail mary to anyone who abused.

You said earlier that "The fact is nobody knows if an offender ever confessed abusing?!! do we?". I was merely refuting that point, because we do know that an offender confessed. It's a matter of legal record. Your assertion was incorrect, and based on supposition rather than fact.

Delirium

Story from last August when the talk about the new law first started.

On Tuesday night an emotional Mrs Walmsley, who says she was abused by a priest in the confessional box while being cared for at Nazareth House in Derry as an eight-year-old, believes the catholic church has failed victims.

Link

I presume as the woman broke the seal she is now excommunicated?

Plus I thought that the Vatican said that Canon Law isn't above Civil/Criminal Law? If they don't report the abuse, then surely that contradicts that stance?

sellerbarry

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

I am lost for words after reading this reply. One kiddie fiddler telling another his evil doings in a box in a church. Can just see it now when they are finished " Right father, that's great. I'm off back up to the primary school for the day. See you next week." They should all be put up against a wall imo.

ironingbored

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.

I like this part of the article:

Sean Brady:

“the inviolability of the seal of confession is so fundamental to the very nature of the Sacrament that any proposal that undermines that inviolability is a challenge to the right of every Catholic to freedom of religion and conscience”

Isn't this the same guy who got children to remain silent about abuse by the notorious Brendan Smyth?

The irony is sickening.

ironingbored

David Quinn obviously hasn't read about the Australian priest:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-every-vote-counts-in-fiscal-treaty-referendum-but-the-governments-attitude-may-force-prolife-voters-into-no-camp-3094601.html

Another is that they know asking priests to break the seal won't protect a single child. It is clear that no one would confess child abuse to a priest if they knew they would then be reported to the police.

qrrgprgua

ironingbored wrote: »

I like this part of the article:

Sean Brady:

Isn't this the same guy who got children to remain silent about abuse by the notorious Brendan Smyth?

The irony is sickening.

Sean Brady did invent the seal of confession and can't change it. Its not just a teaching of the Catholic church, its a teaching of many Church's who claim apostolic succession.

Confession is supposed to be about making amends and not sinning again. A person who has been convicted of a crime/ Served the sentence can go to Confession.

Simple reality is. If the Church were to say that all crimes spoken in confession would be reported (Irish legislation its not just limited to child abuse) If crimes were to be reported.. they simply would not be confessed.

Its human nature... Seal of Confession is a Religious sacrament that has always afforded total secrecy. Its not about covering update crimes.

BraveInca

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Simple reality is. If the Church were to say that all crimes spoken in confession would be reported (Irish legislation its not just limited to child abuse) If crimes were to be reported.. they simply would not be confessed.

So a criminal could not seek religious absolution without also facing up to the legal consequences of his or her crime? Sounds good to me.

Other than that I see no public good in providing criminals with an outlet to get things off their chests with no real-world consequences.

Michael Weston

So if a child abuser is caught and convicted and during the course of the trial admits he/she confessed to a priest will said priest be arrested for trial too?
I hope they are, the catholic church has zero accountabilty in this country.
For a law to be passed and a priest to just say " I wont be adhering to that" is just typical of the carry on of the church in Ireland for decades.

robindch

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sean Brady did invent the seal of confession and can't change it.

Brady's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. After the church showed in the most horrendous way possible that it cannot be trusted, the state is now asserting its authority over church tradition in order to protect the state's citizens.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

If crimes were to be reported.. they simply would not be confessed.

What's wrong with that?

If the priests actually believed what they preached, and were to fear an eternity in hell for the mortal (is it?) sin of abusing children, then perhaps then they mightn't commit the crimes in the first place.

magicbastarder

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sean Brady did invent the seal of confession and can't change it. Its not just a teaching of the Catholic church, its a teaching of many Church's who claim apostolic succession.

Confession is supposed to be about making amends and not sinning again. A person who has been convicted of a crime/ Served the sentence can go to Confession.

Simple reality is. If the Church were to say that all crimes spoken in confession would be reported (Irish legislation its not just limited to child abuse) If crimes were to be reported.. they simply would not be confessed.

Its human nature... Seal of Confession is a Religious sacrament that has always afforded total secrecy. Its not about covering update crimes.

the 'everyone else does it' defence is a well worn and near useless excuse. it is an observation, not a reason.

as regards people being worried about the catholic church bringng information about child abuse learned in the confessional to the authorities - there's no worry there. the CC seem to be the safest set of hands as regards not telling anyone about child abuse anyway, as history has shown.

also, as regards the crimes being reported in confession resulting in them simply not being confessed - so ****ing what? that's not a justification for the catholic church learning about them but sitting on the information.
if i confessed to a friend i was abusing kids, and they decided to keep quiet about it but tried to convince me of the error of my ways, the law and public opinion would not smile on them. but this is what we are expected to allow the catholic church to do because of their own internal rules.

i have heard an argument drawing a parallel between the confessional and journalists protecting their sources - but this is facile, as journalists protect their sources because they actually do something with the information.

RussellTuring

qrrgprgua wrote: »

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

So then confession is useful only as a way for sinners to stop feeling guilty.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

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.

So why are they so determined now when they actively covered it up in the past? Because they were found out?

"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."

Funny how the emphasis is on how bad it is to offend God, with wanting to avoid punishment being a runner-up. Not much about empathy or doing the right thing for its own sake.

koth wrote: »

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.

You also couldn't arrest them for a crime they have yet to commit (conspiracy doesn't count since the conspiracy itself is the crime).

oldrnwisr

RussellTuring wrote: »

You also couldn't arrest them for a crime they have yet to commit.

Really?

RussellTuring

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really?

I was secretly hoping someone would reference Philip K Dick.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sean Brady did invent the seal of confession and can't change it. Its not just a teaching of the Catholic church, its a teaching of many Church's who claim apostolic succession.

Confession is supposed to be about making amends and not sinning again. A person who has been convicted of a crime/ Served the sentence can go to Confession.

Simple reality is. If the Church were to say that all crimes spoken in confession would be reported (Irish legislation its not just limited to child abuse) If crimes were to be reported.. they simply would not be confessed.

Its human nature... Seal of Confession is a Religious sacrament that has always afforded total secrecy. Its not about covering update crimes.

But this has been the case in other Irish legislation for years, why make a fuss about it now ? And why not diffuse the situation by recommending that priests hearing confession include as part of the penance that the penitent seek help from the relevant authorities as a condition of absolution.

In cases of theft making restitution was always part of the penance was it not ? what is different about child abuse ?

Ellis Dee

marienbad wrote: »

In cases of theft making restitution was always part of the penance was it not ? what is different about child abuse ?

What if the priest has his own axe to grind?

qrrgprgua

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, as regards the crimes being reported in confession resulting in them simply not being confessed - so ****ing what? that's not a justification for the catholic church learning about them but sitting on the information.

What has the catholic church got to do with not revealing seal of confession?

The Catholic Church does not know what is said in confession.. Priests can't report anything!. So certainly not the Church that is hiding what is said in Confession. And as I said.. is the same in the Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Armenian Orthodox Church.. All the church's that have nothing to do with Rome or Vatican...

Seal of confession is fundamental to many church's. Its part of our faith,,, and last I heard Freedom of Religion was a fundamental human right.

Why is this thread linking Sealed Confession only to the Catholic Church?

magicbastarder

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Catholic Church does not know what is said in confession.. Priests can't report anything!

the priests of the catholic church hear what is said in confession. i'm not sure if what you're trying to say is that what is said in confession is said to god?

this thread is linking sealed confession with the catholic church precisely because the church has a history of sheltering paedophiles within their midst, and not passing on relevant information to the authorities.
if the greek orthodox church had a history of doing this in ireland, you can be damn sure we'd be talking about them in the same way.

as regards freedom of religion being violated by such a law; is it a violation of the mormon religion that a man cannot take several wives in ireland? are you arguing that we should change the law to allow them?

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What has the catholic church got to do with not revealing seal of confession?

The Catholic Church does not know what is said in confession.. Priests can't report anything!. So certainly not the Church that is hiding what is said in Confession. And as I said.. is the same in the Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Armenian Orthodox Church.. All the church's that have nothing to do with Rome or Vatican...

Seal of confession is fundamental to many church's. Its part of our faith,,, and last I heard Freedom of Religion was a fundamental human right.

Why is this thread linking Sealed Confession only to the Catholic Church?

Because the association of catholic priests brought it up - no ??

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Seal of confession is fundamental to many church's. Its part of our faith,,, and last I heard Freedom of Religion was a fundamental human right.

You're free to practice your religion, you're not free to hide behind it when you rape a child or you've heard the confession of someone who's raped a child.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What has the catholic church got to do with not revealing seal of confession?

The Catholic Church does not know what is said in confession.. Priests can't report anything!. So certainly not the Church that is hiding what is said in Confession. And as I said.. is the same in the Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Armenian Orthodox Church.. All the church's that have nothing to do with Rome or Vatican...

Seal of confession is fundamental to many church's. Its part of our faith,,, and last I heard Freedom of Religion was a fundamental human right.

Why is this thread linking Sealed Confession only to the Catholic Church?

Because it's the RCC who's kicking up the biggest fuss about it, nearly everyone else is fine with it.

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because it's the RCC who's kicking up the biggest fuss about it, nearly everyone else is fine with it.

So the Orthodox priests are fine with it? Who is everyone else?

The seal of confession is part of our faith and that of other churches. It can't be broken and it can't be changed.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So the Orthodox priests are fine with it? Who is everyone else?

The seal of confession is part of our faith and that of other churches. It can't be broken and it can't be changed.

Nothing has changed either in the church or the law So why make a fuss about it now then ?

Bye the way how many Orthodox priests are up in arms in Ireland about it ?

Ghost Buster

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So the Orthodox priests are fine with it? Who is everyone else?

The seal of confession is part of our faith and that of other churches. It can't be broken and it can't be changed.

Under the eyes of the law your faith should count as much as kids crossing their fingers behind their backs when promising not to steal the biscuits.

qrrgprgua

This whole thread is self defeating.. common sense will tell you that nobody is going to incriminate themselves intentionally. If they were the would just hand themselves over. At least with confession there is some possibility of reaching out to people who are abusing and trying to get them treated or convicted.. For arguments sack if confession was unsealed then obviously people will keep their mouth shut..

There are many people who will talk to a priest in confession specifically because its sealed, even when it has nothing to do with a crime or abuse. I have heard people who won't call the Samaritans because its not 100% confidential but are ok talking to a priest.

So, should for arguments sack, the church turn around tomorrow saying that the seal of confession is no longer respected for crimes confessed... Then.. People won't confess them and that avenue of help that could be afforded to them is cut off.. People simply won't incriminate themselves.

While the law being passed is important and all church's should follow it. The whole argument around unsealing a confession is self defeating.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So the Orthodox priests are fine with it? Who is everyone else?

The seal of confession is part of our faith and that of other churches. It can't be broken and it can't be changed.

What part of my post said the Orthodox Priests are okay with it.

I very very very clearly said "The RCC are kicking up the biggest fuss about it."

I'm sure their are quite a few religious orders who are unhappy about it, but the Law, morals and society's ethics are far far far more important than any Religious traditions.