TESTING THE FAITH 'Confession' of child abuse no longer secret?

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 27, 2006

[redgolum]

Odd, and I doubt it would pass.

It if did, then the attorney cleint privilege (which is very porous anyway) should be struck down as well.

[Diva]

Still, there is no Biblical support for the seal of the confessional.

Of course there is but I guess you don't accept it.

[Diva]

It's hard to find a Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's.

Where does it stop? If the "state" (US Supreme Court) would upholds such a law you can kiss the Free Exercise Clause goodbye.

[SoothingDave]

It's hard to find a Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's.

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

SD

[beezdotcom]

I was just puzzled, as others were, why you would think a child telling a priest that he was the victim of abuse would be classified as under a confessional seal.

This part puzzled me almost as much as the assertion that the child would automatically be able to judge who was most appropriate to tell. A serial abuser would likely have poisoned a child's mind against the police, as an insurance policy.

[GVnana]

Knowledge of criminal acts places a special burden on a priest. I think it's likely that a perp who confesses would be relieved to have the assistance of a priest in submitting to civil authority.

But we are talking about two separate spheres of authority and justice. If we demand that a priest simply becomes a civil authority reporting agency, all the avenues to rectify a situation without civil authority are gone, and the safety and peace of the confessional is gone. The laws of man are not the same as the laws of God.

[beezdotcom]

Where does it stop? If the "state" (US Supreme Court) would upholds such a law you can kiss the Free Exercise Clause goodbye.

I don't agree with the proposed law BECAUSE of the Free Exercise Clause, and have said such. However, I also don't agree with the impassioned defense of this part of Catholic dogma, which this law has prompted.

[SoothingDave]

I'm arguing for keeping the confessional seal absolute. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

SD

[redgolum]

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

Kind of off topic, but before WWII and even into the first few years of fighting such things were very popular themes of discussion in theological circles. Many theologians (and not a few were Catholic) said that in order to not violate the commandment "Thou shall not lie" it was not permissible to lie in any and all instances. It didn't mean you had to reveal all though. There was a deep feeling that you could not lie, even to protect the innocent.

What is interesting, is many of the young at the time theologians changed as the war progressed. Bonhoeffer for instance, who was in many ways more radical, went from a 100% pacifist to working against the Nazi's. It troubled his conscience a lot that he had made common cause with those who would kill, but he realized that to do nothing would only support those who would do far greater evil. The old "just war" from Augustine again.

[beezdotcom]

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

So you think comparing child molestors to runaway slaves is a fair comparison?

But to answer your question, no. I was speaking of those situations where man's law DOESN'T violate God's law. Many hold the position that 'protecting the innocent' is INDEED part of God's law, and would thus trump any law of man in the cases you cite.

Unfortunately, this issue treads into that thorny area where I don't also consider the confessional seal 'God's law', but you DO.

So, in summary: I think the "free exercise" clause absolves priests of the need to violate the "seal of the confessional". However, from my religious perspective, this represents MAN'S law (free exercise) and MAN'S flawed interpretation (confessional seal) trumping GOD's law (protecting the innocent). You will disagree, and I understand all the reasons why. I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.

[MineralMan]

"You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the topic. It outlines very nicely the Catholic teaching on the topic, which is, as usual, based in Scripture. "

I had read the entry on the Sacrament of Confession, and on the Seal of the Confessional before I wrote. In the article on the Seal, there is no biblical justification offered, only canon law and tradition. The Sacrament itself is vaguely supported in John and Matthew, but not specifically.

As you may know, most Protestant churches do not use the Sacrament of Confession as normal practice. The Lutheran church still offers it to its congregants, but it is rarely used. Most other Protestant churches reject it as unbiblical.

You assume that I have not done my research. That is almost always an invalid assumption.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, MineralMan, I think your position is reasonabe and well-stated. However, as I'm sure you know, from the Catholic point of view, every point of doctrine does not have to be explicitly supported by the Bible, because the Bible implicitly gives support to all the doctrines of the Church by giving the Church authority on earth. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth wil be loosed in heaven." And "Whoever hears you hears Me, and hears the One Who sent Me. This is what the Catholic Church firmly understands and teaches; understandably, it's a point of view not widespread amongst non-Catholics. :o)

[MineralMan]

"Thank you, MineralMan, I think your position is reasonabe and well-stated. However, as I'm sure you know, from the Catholic point of view, every point of doctrine does not have to be explicitly supported by the Bible, because the Bible implicitly gives support to all the doctrines of the Church by giving the Church authority on earth. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth wil be loosed in heaven." And "Whoever hears you hears Me, and hears the One Who sent Me. This is what the Catholic Church firmly understands and teaches; understandably, it's a point of view not widespread amongst non-Catholics. :o)"

Thanks. Yes, I know what the basis of the doctrine is. Roman Catholics follow that doctrine. Other denominations of Christianity do not. There it is. It's an academic thing for me, really.

And, for me, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from trespassing on this RCC doctrine. The Constitution is my guide in these things, not the dogma of any church.

So, I'm opposed to any such law, on Constitutional grounds. I do enjoy discussions of religious doctrine, though. I find them fascinating.

[phil1750]

However, I also don't agree with the impassioned defense of this part of Catholic dogma, which this law has prompted.

This part of the Catholic faith is etched in stone and no priest would ever violate it.

However, religion is not the issue between a lawyer and his client. How about we get all defense attorneys to 'fess up?

[beezdotcom]

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth wil be loosed in heaven."

Yes, and the whole universe almost ceased to exist because of it! (I'm thinking of the plot of the movie Dogma)

[RKBA Democrat]

Ahhh. Thank you for posting about the latest assault on the Catholic churches.

I'm curious as to what the legislator proposing this is actually trying to accomplish. If the law is passed, no priest who wants to remain a priest is going to obey it. In addition, I would think it likely that anyone who commits an act of child abuse would be careful to refrain from discussing it. So the net practical result of the law will be, well, zero. And that's assuming that the law will pass constitutional muster, which I doubt.

However, there *is* of course the cheap shot to be scored by attacking Catholics and the sanctity of the confessional.

So who is sponsoring this bill in the NH legislature, and where can I contribute to his or her opponent?

[beezdotcom]

However, religion is not the issue between a lawyer and his client. How about we get all defense attorneys to 'fess up?

Sometimes, they are obligated to:

"Physical evidence of a client's crime would also not be covered under the privilege since the attorney would be required ethically to turn such evidence over to prosecutors."

I imagine there are other exceptions, and other ways that a morally-convicted attorney could address the issue.

[SoothingDave]

It's hard to find a Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's.

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

So you think comparing child molestors to runaway slaves is a fair comparison?

I was just wondering if you meant what you said "that it's hard to find Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's."

Obviously it is possible to find such a basis when man's law is in opposition to God's law. Since we seem to agree with the principle here, I shan't go further.

So, in summary: I think the "free exercise" clause absolves priests of the need to violate the "seal of the confessional". However, from my religious perspective, this represents MAN'S law (free exercise) and MAN'S flawed interpretation (confessional seal) trumping GOD's law (protecting the innocent). You will disagree, and I understand all the reasons why. I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.

Fair enough. You don't need to agree with our "free exercise," but your support for the freedom is appreciated.

In all honesty, this is largely a hypothetical question.

SD

[beezdotcom]

I had read the entry on the Sacrament of Confession, and on the Seal of the Confessional before I wrote. In the article on the Seal, there is no biblical justification offered, only canon law and tradition.

In the past, I have been directed to various verses in Proverbs which stress the virtue of keeping secrets - but these would seem to apply only to those secrets one has committed to keep. They don't seem to provide a mandate for a doctrine of 'offering to keep the secret in the first place'.

[beezdotcom]

In all honesty, this is largely a hypothetical question.

But when has a hypothetical ever stopped us FReepers before? :-)