. All this hoopla is just Catholic bashing. It implies that priests hear large numbers of pedophiles confessing every week. Xenophon should stop pontificating on things he does not understand. If a priest heard such a confession the priest would not just tell the person to say a prayer and be absolved. They would encourage the person to seek professional help as well as tell the person to never do anything sinful again. And try to help the person in other ways.
Xenophon should also realise that any such move could scare offenders away from confession, which could be the first step towards seeking treatment.
A priest only absolves a person when that person is genuinely expressing contrition for wrong deeds.
Why do people think they can pontificate on religious matters of the faith they do not understand. I am sure that most people would not be telling other religions they do not understand how to conduct their affairs
The seal of the confessional in is absolute and lifelong confidentiality. Canon 1388.1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law: "A priest who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense.
An excommunication is the worst thing that can happen to any Catholic.
Even worse than being raped?
Won’t happen in the U.S., clear violation of the First Amendment. Shouldn’t happen anywhere else, either. Horrible idea.
Oh, well, as long as they’re told that they shouldn’t diddle kids anymore … by a priest (no irony there) … I’m sure all will be well.
For those of us who don’t subscribe to catholic doctrine, what you have written is so offensive as to be almost parody. I sort of hope it is but I suspect not.
Let me see…on one hand excommunication, on the other…shopping a rapist.
Which to choose? which to choose?
Tell me, what actually happens to an excommunicated catholic? comparable to what happens to a raped child?
Because I only know about the latter so I’m imagining that the former must be truly terrifying to be as bad as that…enlighten us please.
I thought this was going to be about requiring priests to register their whereabouts, inform people when they moved into a neighborhood, that kind of thing.
I’m not sure the Cathlic church can claim that child abuse is their issue alone. It is possible for members of other religions, even people with no religion at all, to abuse children.
There is nothing to stop a priest from ignoring the law. Of course, if the abuser is caught and it is found that he revealed his crimes to a priest, then the priest could get in trouble. I can’t for the life of me figure out why that isn’t already the case. If I know of a crime and help cover it up then I can get in hot water too, why not priests?
It depends on “how Catholic you are.”
A number of them believe…well, I think a joke from comedian Dave Allen describes it best:
A man dies and goes to heaven, where St. Peter gives him the tour. “Now, over there we have the Hindus, and over there are the Jews, and over there the Muslims, and over there the Mormons” - and then they come to a giant wall that stretches as far as the eye can see.
“What’s behind there?,” the man asks.
“Well, behind there, we have the Catholics.”
“Why are they behind a wall?”
“Shhhh - keep it down! They like to think they’re the only ones up here.”
Under current US law, a pedophile that confesses his conduct to his lawyer is equally safe.
The lawyer is prohibted from revealing admissions that occur in the context of the attorney-client communication.
We do this not because lawyers are sacred, but because we as a society have determined that there is value in allowing unbridled, safe communication between a prospective defendant and his lawyer.
By the same token, we as a society have determined that there is value in allowing unbridled, safe communication between a wrongdoer and his priest, minister, rabbi, or other religious advisor. We have decided that the existence of this safe channel encourages wrongdoers to confess and be guided towards ending their depradations and coming forward to accept secular punishment.
Meanwhile, if a therapist is told by a patient of a crime that he has been committed, he is bound by law to report it. Why is a priest more like a lawyer and less like a therapist in this instance?
Already answered the question of why not priests, but replying here to address the general claim that if you know of a crime and help cover it up, then you get in hot water too.
As I understand this discussion, we’re talking about priests who hear confession of a crime and then do not report the crime to anyone. This is the extent of “helping to cover it up.” Yes?
If so, then (while state laws can very dramatically) as a general rule the same thing is true for you: if you, as a private shlub, become aware of a crime, there is no penalty for you if you fail to report it.
But wait, I hear you cry. What about federal law?
But no… court decisions have required that the person take some active steps to conceal the crime, not simply know of it:
From US v. Johnson, 546 F. 2d 1225, 1226 (5th Circuit 1977)
Of course states are free to make their own laws, and I don’t say that a state or two may impose a more onerous requirement. But as a general principle… no.
As far as I know, in the UK there is no priest-penitent privilege enshrined in law.
The straight dope is about combating ignorance. So try to learn.
As excommunication is the worst thing that can happen to a catholic then logically it is worse than being raped.
There are over 1 billion catholics around the world. Maybe you should take that into account before making any rash statements. I am not a catholic. I went to catholic schools for 12 years and read numerous books on religion and especially catholicism.
I see, well I’ll take you at your word and it only goes to further diminish the church hierarchy in my eyes.
why? does the size of a religion have a bearing on its veracity? or will they do “bad things” to me? and what is considered a “rash” statement?
So if you are that well read tell me, what do you think about a doctrinal position that says excommunication is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person?
My wife is a Licensed Professional Counselor in Texas, and I know that she is required to report crimes, as part of her licensure. I also knew of the attorney-client privilege, that an attorney is not required to report. But I wasn’t sure about the status of somebody like me, the private shlub.
So it seems like you’re saying that the attorney-client privilege is not really anything different from any regular person-to-shlub conversation in this regard? Maybe the difference is that an attorney is acting unethical if he does report it?
About the OP, I’m against giving the clergy any special status. If a shlub is not required to report a crime, I don’t think a priest should be either. On the other hand, any person who knows of an ongoing crime like child rape and does nothing is an evil scum. Any respectable organization would support internal rules that would eject people who do that from its ranks.
I think that what the OP meant was that excommunication was the worst thing that could happen to a Catholic in the context of Catholicism.
And while a priest is not permitted to divulge confessions, he is permitted to withhold absolution if he does not believe the penitent is sincere in their contrition. And for a crime, one of the ways to show contrition would be to confess to the civil authorities. So a priest might make a confession to the police a condition for absolution.
Followed closely by …
I think you need to look up the meaning of ‘rash statement’. I don’t care what the fucking Pope says you can and can’t do … getting raped is worse.
I’m not aware of one either, although in Canada it seems to me that about ten years ago the Supreme Court carved out an exemption, although not an absolute one. But I have enough to do keeping track of the US Supremes, so I could be mistaken.
Is that sarcasm? I thought it obviously was, then your next couple of sentences made me wonder.
I have to admit, my initial thoughts ran along those lines, too, more specifically that bishops would have to report pedophile priests instead of shuffling them around as was the policy.