First sentence of the OP:
Bolding mine.
Good article in the Sydney morning Herald
“Demanding laws that require priests to break the confessional seal sounds good. It sounds tough, uncompromising, commonsense. But it’s also the kind of thing you do when you don’t understand the problem you’re trying to solve. That’s what we’re witnessing here: irreligious people trying to address a religious problem with brute secular force. That might make perfect intuitive sense to the staunchly secular mind, but we need more than intuition and declarations of secular supremacy here. What matters is what works. And taking an axe to the confessional box won’t work. It might even make things worse.”
Read more: It's essential we think outside the confessional box
In theory, those who serve vulnerable populations (like teachers, healthcare workers, police, therapists, etc) have a greater responsibility to report abuse because the very nature of their job is to protect, care for or guide people when they are vulnerable, and thus are subject to mandatory reporting laws not applicable to regular citizens. The role that clergy play in serving vulnerable people is where things get blurry.
If a person confesses something to a teacher, healthcare worker, policeperson, therapist, etc, are they required to report it? For example, a therapist is required to report a patient if they talk about hurting themselves or other people, however are they required to report if a patient admits to hurting someone in the past?
I am not a Catholic, but I think it’s important to protect confessions in the same way that we have attorney-client or doctor-patient protection. There’s a few reasons for this.
First, if it becomes required that a priest in confession must turn someone in, it significantly reduces the incentive of people in the confession to actually confess. If someone is aware of that fact, confessing to a crime to a priest is tanatmount to confessing to the secular authority. It’s the same way that a criminal wouldn’t confess to his attorney if he knew he’d be turned in, but now you don’t have that person getting the advice of someone who hopefully has both that person’s best interest AND the general best interest as well and might help convince them to turn themselves in where, if they knew they’d get turned in, might never say anything and thus never have that opportunity to be convinced.
Second, as mentioned upthread, Priests taking confessions will usually require someone show remorse for a serious offence before offering absolution. As such, if someone confesses to murder, rape, child molestation, etc. the Priest ought to refuse to offer absolution without that person turning himself into the secular authorities. If the person cares enough about absolution to confess, maybe being denied it will do enough to convince them to turn themselves in and, if it isn’t, then surely knowing they’d essentially be turning themselves in, they wouldn’t do it at all.
Third, it’s important for humanity in general to have those sorts of protected relationships, even if it did mean that it protects some criminals, for a lot of people knowing that they’re confessing in absolute confidence is important, especially if they’re dealing with deeply personal and embarassing problems. Having that absolute protection might help those people get what they need where them having that bit of risk might scare them away.
In Australia, the laws regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect vary from state to state but generally cover anyone who deals with children as part of their job, although in the Northern Territory it applies to “any person with reasonable grounds.”
The South Australian laws include ministers of religion “with the exception of disclosures made in the confessional.”
I blame the Irish.
As an aside, can you imagine the kinds of crap priests probably hear?
Yeah, except for that pesky, “innocent until proven guilty” thing. :rolleyes:
The seal of the confessional applies only to the confessional. If a priest were to walk in on a crime in progress, or notice something fishy in the parish records, or be told by someone else of suspicions, there is no ethical obligation against passing any of those on to the appropriate authorities. If you want to make them mandatory reporters for those sorts of situations, that’s fine (and in fact, I think they might already be).
We’re talking about the sacrament of Confession here. It doesn’t apply to folks coming in and talking to a priest as a way of airing what’s going on with them or getting something off their chest. It’s a Catholic person in a confessional going through a formal sacrament. It’s not a therapy session (although there is room for discussion and counsel); it’s the priest as a channel for the forgiveness of God. It is sacred and no, should not be violated.
True, priests are obligated to keep the seal of the confessional intact even if it means a trip to the gallows.
Aly is an idiot. All problems are secular problems - if it’s not a secular problem, if the only problem is that you’re hurting a fictional character’s feelings, there is no problem. He can bitch and moan about “declarations of secular supremacy” all he likes, but the fact of the matter is we are right and he is wrong.
So what we really need to do is follow the less brutal path of the Church. We should’t arrest child molesters, we should just quietly order them to move to another neighborhood.
Yes, that will work. Thank you, oh wise and experienced Catholic elders!
I agree. We should also close all high schools and colleges with sports programs, Scouting and other youth organizations, day care centers, etc., until all of them have demonstrated that they are totally free of any pedophile members.
The percentage of Catholic priests who have been discovered to be abusers tends to run in the same percentages as Episcopal priests, Lutheran pastors, Baptist and other Evangelical ministers, scout leaders, athletic coaches, etc. The reason that the RCC makes such a fine target is that they are the only organization that actually kept records, while all the other organizations quietly turned their pedophiles out to avoid embarrassment and then simply dropped those records.
I believe that those bishops who actually engaged in “quiet transfers” should be held accountable–and I support fines and jail terms–but pretending that this is a “Catholic” problem simply demonstrates that it is easier for most folks to focus on a visible target than it is to try to take broader constructive steps to address the problem throughout society.
As to the OP. Any state can pass any law they wish, but they will effectively get no response. The seal of confession has never been broken by a state when torture was a preferred manner of determining guilt and it will not be broken by a state with nominally more enlightened rules regarding evidence and the rights of the accused.
Do you have a cite for this?
No. It tends to be anecdotal and Philip Jenkins who wrote an examination of the problem within the American Catholic church has stated that there is no authoritative study on the topic. However, I have seen stories such as this one often enough in the last decade or so to draw the conclusion I posted.
Nowhere does that quote say anything about not arresting child molesters.
My point is that the whole thing about catholic confessional is a waste of time. If we really want to do something about reducing or eliminating child abuse, spending time and money on anything to do with changing the laws around the catholic confessional is one of the worst things to do.
It seems to me that all the scandals around the catholic church have been about these elaborate cover-ups, not the simple fact of abuse. Abuse will occur: what the Catholic church has to answer for is using its tremendous organization to protect abusers from prosecution and to allow (albeit unintentionally) for them to keep abusing children.
It’s the cover-up, not the abuse. Is there any evidence that Catholic authorities used the seal of the confessional to conceal their cover ups? You know, something like "Hey, Frank, we had a disturbing report about that new guy we got from . … " “Wait, no, don’t tell me. Let’s step into the confessional before we discuss him”. If that kind of bullshit is going on, chunk the protection because it’s being abused. Those conversations–the ones where two people stood and talked about a third party, a known child molester, and thought only about how to keep the problem secret–are what the church has to answer for. Those are the problem.
Again, you wouldn’t duck into a confessional to have a discussion about someone. It’s for a specific, formalized sacrament, not just a quiet place to have a confidential chat.
(Bolding mine). Yes. This. If people knew priests could report them, they wouldn’t confess to the crime, unless they really cared about absolution, in which case the only possible penance for very serious crimes should be turning oneself over to the authorities.
Yes, besides whatever theological problems I may have with confession, if one is truly remorseful, they should be willing to receive the punishment of the justice system.