Seal of Confession

Tea 1000 · 14-07-2011 09:56PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

So. We have someone admitting to abuse - an act of which we can say there is a reasonable chance of a repeat. The priest maintains this "seal"

The man comes in the week after and confesses to more abuse.

What do you think now..

Two things - One is there's hardly much point from the confessor's point of view of going back to confession week after week to confess when none of his serious crimes are being absolved from the previous confessions, based on the idea that many priests with a brain would absolve the sin pending on the penance being to turn themselves in. And Two, what's to stop the priest putting himself in a position to catch the repeat offender in the act, therefore reporting him on what he has seen first hand, keeping the seal of confession in tact?

In all fairness, I think targeting priests who won't speak about what was said in the confession box is shooting the wrong target. If this is ever pressed, and a case is found where a priest on trial won't speak about the confession, he will just allow himeself to be arrested. Then all you'll have is a man doing his job as best as he knows how in jail.
The real problem is the lack of action by certain memebers of the church when abuse victims came forward or when knowledge was acquired outside the confession and not acted upon.
I'd wonder is there any case at all where the only information known by anyone was via confession. Typical media picking on the contentious subject.

dvpower · 14-07-2011 10:01PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

I don't see it making any difference to be honest, how do you prove a private conversation between two people, on a specific topic, took place when neither will talk about it and there is no record? How do you punish someone for something you can't prove?

You might have a situation where a person who has being abusing a child over a long period, and is eventually caught, comes clean to the Gardai and tells them that he had informed his priest of the offences.

The priest won't be able to confirm this (because of the seal), but neither might he deny it. Its easy to see how his failure to report could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

lmaopml · 14-07-2011 10:10PM

I came in at the end of that program dvpower....and I understood that the FG representative wanted to introduce new legislation whereby a 'barrister' - 'laywer' etc. had heard a confession of abuse and 'had' to report it to the authorities even if the person confessing was a 'client'?

Maybe it wasn't the same program? It was around 5'ish..?

Still, the point and similarity stands.

14-07-2011 10:11PM

Genuine question:

If the breaking of the seal of confession results in the immediate excommunication of the priest (by latae sententiae I assume), is his breaking of that seal considered a sin? Not only that, is it considered a sin that's on par with with the mortal sins?

If the above is the case, here's a novel solution: the priest should inform the relevant authorities in the cases of serious situations--such as another priest confessing child abuse, or a person confessing either murder or the intent to murder, etc.--after which the priest himself can seek absolution from another priest, resulting in his communion with the Church being reinstated.

Good solution?

Manach · 14-07-2011 10:14PM

Whilst I agree with previous Catholic posters on this, I'd also not like this proposal extended to include other professions such as the doctor/patient confidentiality.
I seem to remember in certain US States in is legally inviolate however in this jurisdiction I would not know if this would fall under common or legislative law.

swiftblade · 14-07-2011 10:33PM

Im sure if the police had an idea a crime was committed and the priest may have heard of it, they could request that the facts be disclosed, similar to if a doctor heard of a crime. A warrent ( don't know the correct term) would obviously be needed along with sufficient evidence to obtain it.

gimmebroadband · 14-07-2011 10:35PM

gvn wrote: »

Genuine question:

If the breaking of the seal of confession results in the immediate excommunication of the priest (by latae sententiae I assume), is his breaking of that seal considered a sin? Not only that, is it considered a sin that's on par with with the mortal sins?

If the above is the case, here's a novel solution: the priest should inform the relevant authorities in the cases of serious situations--such as another priest confessing child abuse, or a person confessing either murder or the intent to murder, etc.--after which the priest himself can seek absolution from another priest, resulting in his communion with the Church being reinstated.

Good solution?

A priest who violates the seal of confession is subject to very severe ecclesiastical penalties. According to the Code of Canon Law, a priest who deliberately reveals a penitent's sins and identity is subject to an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, which can be lifted only by the Apostolic See, i.e., the Pope (see canon 1388).

14-07-2011 10:37PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A priest who violates the seal of confession is subject to very severe ecclesiastical penalties. According to the Code of Canon Law, a priest who deliberately reveals a penitent's sins and identity is subject to an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, which can be lifted only by the Apostolic See, i.e., the Pope (see canon 1388).

Ah, I see. So the version of latae sententiae imposed on him for this offence is far more severe than the version imposed on a regular person for a mere mortal sin. Thanks for clearing that up.

phantom_lord · 14-07-2011 10:39PM

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

Penn · 14-07-2011 10:41PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

Beat me to it.

gimmebroadband · 14-07-2011 10:45PM

Priests have gotten into legal trouble due to their refusal to reveal a penitent's sins.

St. John Nepomucene (1340–1393) was tortured and then drowned by King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia because he would not reveal the sins confessed by the queen.

In 1813, a Jesuit priest from New York, Father Anthony Kohlman, S.J., was called into court to testify concerning matters he had learned about during a confession. When he refused to testify, Father Kohlman was tried for contempt of court. The issue was finally settled when the State of New York passed a law exempting priests from revealing any information obtained in confession.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100423

gimmebroadband · 14-07-2011 10:46PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

How do you know they didn't, not all Hierarchy did coverups!!

dvpower · 14-07-2011 10:51PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Priests have gotten into legal trouble due to their refusal to reveal a penitent's sins.

St. John Nepomucene (1340–1393) was tortured and then drowned by King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia because he would not reveal the sins confessed by the queen.

In 1813, a Jesuit priest from New York, Father Anthony Kohlman, S.J., was called into court to testify concerning matters he had learned about during a confession. When he refused to testify, Father Kohlman was tried for contempt of court. The issue was finally settled when the State of New York passed a law exempting priests from revealing any information obtained in confession.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100423

If this passes (and there is ever real life cases) then priests are going to be in trouble with either canon law or state law. They're just going to have to choose their allegiance.

If it ever comes to it, maybe they will consider the actual victim that they could actually help when coming to their decision. They could try a novel practise of disregarding both laws and looking into their hearts and doing the right thing.

phantom_lord · 14-07-2011 10:54PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

How do you know they didn't

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

gimmebroadband · 14-07-2011 11:00PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

There is also a myriad of those who didn't do coverups!

phantom_lord · 14-07-2011 11:04PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

There is also a myriad of those who didn't do coverups!

That's nice, but it doesn't take away from the incredible amount that went on.

lmaopml · 14-07-2011 11:07PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

I think the 'Confession' box here is an easy target. It undermines Catholics for the sake of vigilantism, and it jumps the gun insofar as any other profession is concerned. Should a lawyer not represent a client either whom they believe is 'guilty' of drink driving or speeding? Should they go straight to the judge and say - 'Yeah, he/she told me they did it, so throw the book at them'?

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty - there is such a thing called 'due process' - it's very very important in civilised society. It involves an 'accusation' and a procedure.......

Now, rather than indulging in hysterics over the 'confessional' - perhaps the law, and in particular those who are suggesting such outrageous human rights violations should start to look at how better to 'protect' children and improve the 'law' which was ultimately complicit in letting them down? No?

antiskeptic · 14-07-2011 11:08PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Two things - One is there's hardly much point from the confessor's point of view of going back to confession week after week to confess when none of his serious crimes are being absolved from the previous confessions,

I didn't appreciate that. So a priest won't absolve sin for a crime without confession to the authorities first? Or is it just some crime and how would that be decided upon?

What about adultery? Would a person have to confess to their wife first in order to be absolved? Or confess to an employer that they were surfing instead of working?

And Two, what's to stop the priest putting himself in a position to catch the repeat offender in the act, therefore reporting him on what he has seen first hand, keeping the seal of confession in tact?

The idea of him turning up next week shouldn't be taken too literally. Let's just say the offender could offend again at a time frame impossible for the priest to keep tabs on

In all fairness, I think targeting priests who won't speak about what was said in the confession box is shooting the wrong target. If this is ever pressed, and a case is found where a priest on trial won't speak about the confession, he will just allow himeself to be arrested. Then all you'll have is a man doing his job as best as he knows how in jail.

I don't see how this is so. The priest is in jail because he's committed an offence. Aiding and abetting a child molester for all intents and purposes.

The real problem is the lack of action by certain memebers of the church when abuse victims came forward or when knowledge was acquired outside the confession and not acted upon. I'd wonder is there any case at all where the only information known by anyone was via confession. Typical media picking on the contentious subject.

The typical media is currently shredding Rupert Murdoch. They also have their maulers on a church apparently riddled with an inability to realise the freefall they are undergoing. The issue isn't the press picking on any loose threads (loose threads have a habit of unravelling garments btw), the issue is a church continuously caught like rabbits in the headlights.

I'm all for the Roman church maintaining it's position on the "sacred(?) seal" btw. It only adds more holes below the waterline and causes more and more people to abandon ship.

antiskeptic · 14-07-2011 11:19PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think the 'Confession' box here is an easy target. It undermines Catholics for the sake of vigilantism, and it jumps the gun insofar as any other profession is concerned. Should a lawyer not represent a client either whom they believe is 'guilty' of drink driving or speeding?

The issue isn't what the priest believes about is client. The issue is what the priest has been told by the client.

The client has announced himself guilty so this..

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty..

...isn't all that relevant anymore.

dvpower · 14-07-2011 11:20PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty - there is such a thing called 'due process' - it's very very important in civilised society. It involves an 'accusation' and a procedure.......

The procedure will be that certain offences are mandatory reportable - that's all. Due process will then continue.
If someone fails to report a reportable offence, that will be a crime and there will be due process for that too.

lmaopml · 15-07-2011 12:37AM

dvpower wrote: »

The procedure will be that certain offences are mandatory reportable - that's all. Due process will then continue.
If someone fails to report a reportable offence, that will be a crime and there will be due process for that too.

I think you may have missed the point dvpower. I would like to define those 'certain offices' clearly first - especially considering the implications on how we want out society shaped...

Does this standard only apply to a person who says they feel 'guilt' with regards to the confessional, or should it also apply to the lawyer who represents a client also? Should the law 'force' itself with regards the priest, police officer, barrister, lawyer, mother, father, social worker, judge etc. in the same way once a personal confession has been submitted? Or what one may 'deem' as a personal confession...

Personally, I think it's a minefield of human rights abuses...but I'm open to understanding the thinking behind such a 'law'..

Duddy · 15-07-2011 12:40AM

The law of the church doesn't somehow trump the law of the land, however hallowed, historical or mystical it makes itself out to be - bottom line is, if someone hears that someone else is sexually abusing kids, they report it. How is this even being argued?!

Fanny Cradock · 15-07-2011 12:57AM

Perhaps somebody can answer me this question.

The scenario is a lawyer who takes the case of a defendant charged with a terrible crime. Whilst the layer is preparing for the hearing the defendant breaks down and admits guilt. However, the defendant also insists that a plea of not guilty be entered.

I assume that all lawyers in this country are bound by law not to lie to the court (i.e. defend a plea they know to be false). I again assume that they can resign from the defence under a number of circumstances - this scenario being one. But what then? Are they bound to keep silent or reveal their circumstantial evidence to the prosecution?

Zombrex · 15-07-2011 01:13AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps somebody can answer me this question.

The scenario is a lawyer who takes the case of a defendant charged with a terrible crime. Whilst the layer is preparing for the hearing the defendant breaks down and admits guilt. However, the defendant also insists that a plea of not guilty be entered.

I assume that all lawyers in this country are bound by law not to lie to the court (i.e. defend a plea they know to be false). I again assume that they can resign from the defence under a number of circumstances - this scenario being one. But what then? Are they bound to keep silent or reveal their circumstantial evidence to the prosecution?

A solicitor can defend a plea they know to be false, defence solicitors are not examined under oath and are thus not lying to the court by doing so. Because of client privilege the prosecutor cannot simply call the defence solicitor and ask him has his client admitted to committing a crime, the judge would never allow that.

The client privelage never goes away either, even if the solicitor is let go by the client.

The only thing not protected is if the client informs the solicitor they are planning on committing a future crime.

jhegarty · 15-07-2011 09:57AM

Wouldn't it all be hearsay and hence inadmissible in court anyway ?

dvpower · 15-07-2011 10:21AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you may have missed the point dvpower. I would like to define those 'certain offices' clearly first - especially considering the implications on how we want out society shaped...

I've no doubt that the list of reportable offences will form part of the legislation or be published as part of it.

lmaopml wrote: »

Does this standard only apply to a person who says they feel 'guilt' with regards to the confessional, or should it also apply to the lawyer who represents a client also? Should the law 'force' itself with regards the priest, police officer, barrister, lawyer, mother, father, social worker, judge etc. in the same way once a personal confession has been submitted? Or what one may 'deam' as a personal confession...

I presume it will apply to everyone - Enda Kenny made it clear that no one should be exempt.
I think that the lawyer-client privilege might be a red herring. If a case is already with a lawyer, then I presume that that the offence has already been reported.

These privileges are all currently subject to some restrictions. For example, if a patient is diagnosed with certain diseases, doctor patient confidentiality doesn't prevent reporting.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 10:21AM

Wicknight wrote: »

A solicitor can defend a plea they know to be false, defence solicitors are not examined under oath and are thus not lying to the court by doing so. Because of client privilege the prosecutor cannot simply call the defence solicitor and ask him has his client admitted to committing a crime, the judge would never allow that.

The client privelage never goes away either, even if the solicitor is let go by the client.

The only thing not protected is if the client informs the solicitor they are planning on committing a future crime.

I don't think a lawyer can enter into evidence something that he knows to be false.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 10:25AM

alex73 wrote: »

Is the state going head to head with faith?

What has this got to do with faith? The state may be going head to head with canon law, but canon law is just a man made law and is changeable.

Perhaps the Vatican could make it clear to its priests that it's own law has no standing in other jurisdictions. By insisting that it does, it is the Vatican that is going head to head with the state.

Asry · 15-07-2011 11:14AM

I've been following along here and I would agree with the Vatican's stance that the seal of confession is above and beyond reproach. I mean, where else could people just admit to what they've done and try to change their ways and make amends? We're talking about eternal life, here, not just this life on earth. I do think though that being able to just admit to what you've done and just say it out loud to someone without fear of legal ramifications is important for people to come to terms with their crimes. The logical turn to that is that they would seek help and/or turn themselves in.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 11:20AM

Asry wrote: »

I've been following along here and I would agree with the Vatican's stance that the seal of confession is above and beyond reproach. I mean, where else could people just admit to what they've done and try to change their ways and make amends? We're talking about eternal life, here, not just this life on earth. I do think though that being able to just admit to what you've done and just say it out loud to someone without fear of legal ramifications is important for people to come to terms with their crimes. The logical turn to that is that they would seek help and/or turn themselves in.

How can someone make amends without turning themselves into the civil authorities?
Do some Catholics view the confessional as some kind of 'get out of jail free' card?

Seal of Confession

Comments