Priests Could be Ordered to Report Confessions of Sex Abuse to Police [Australia]

The Herald Sun ^ | 7/18/12 | Ashley Gardiner

[marshmallow]

UPDATE: THE prospect of government forcing priests to report what was said in confession is the sign of a "police state mentality", says a priest and law professor.

Hundreds of years of Catholic tradition in the confessional could be overturned by Victoria's inquiry into child sex abuse.

Priests would be ordered to reveal crimes told to them in private confessions under one proposal before the inquiry.

But priests say they will resist being forced to reveal secrets of the confessional.

Priest and law professor Father Frank Brennan said the move would be a restriction on religious freedom.

“If a parliamentary inquiry were to recommend a law by parliament saying that priests were forced to disclose anything revealed to them in the sacrament of confession I think that would be a serious interference with the right of religious freedom,” Father Brennan said today.

“Indeed it would be a very sad day if we moved to a police state mentality, it’s almost of Russian dimensions to suggest Catholic priests would have to reveal to state authorities what went on under the seal of the confessional.

“I am one of the priests who, if such a law were enacted, would disobey it and if need be I would go to jail.”

Father Brennan said disclosures to priests in the confessional were different to those made to doctors or counsellors, or even when a priest was acting in a counsellor role.

“If it were in the sacred realm of the sacrament of confession which in Catholic theology is akin to the penitent being in conversation with God, where the priest is simply an agent, then definitely the state has no role of interference in that.”

[marshmallow]

Note that this is in one Australian state (Victoria).

[Past Your Eyes]

What, when they talk to each other?

[stormer]

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is just stupid grandstanding on the part of the Victoria government.

• First, if offenders knew that Sacramental confessions would be revealed, they would certainly not go to Confession.
• Second, I don't know if a single case where it as even been alleged that the offender revealed his crime in a Sacramental confession.
• Third, it would be impossible to enforce: Who'd tell that the priest had failed to alert the police? The Penitent? or the Confessor?
• Fourth, are they going to record confessions, so some Police Detective can sift through thousands of hours of "Father, I ate a hamburger on a Friday in Lent" in order to detect some probably-nonexistent criminal confession?
• Fifth, what a priest can do, and is supposed to do, if a person confesses a felony, is instruct the penitent to contact the police, and withhold absolution until the penitent self-reports his crime.

The political authorities surely realize all this. Which is why I can't see it as anything other than making a show of pointlessly bullying clergy in order to score politically with the bigot constituency.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Pretty sure....
The parson will tell the constable to go pound sand...
(polite words to that effect)

[stuartcr]

What is the official direction given to priests that receive confessions that are criminal?

[MrEdd]

First the police came for the people who rape children, and I did not speak up because I was not a child rapist.

Then the police came for the people that covered for the child rapists, and I...

---

Nope. Can't come up with a scenario where I see any reason to make religious exceptions on criminal accessory laws.

[wideawake]

If it’s a real crime, they are supposed to refuse absolution until after the penitent turns himself in to the authorities.

[wideawake]

So on the list of advocates for abolishing the First Amendment today:

MrEdd
Chuck Schumer
. . .

[impimp]

You are wrong. You ignore the Truth that is the Catholic Church. The Church that Christ founded. No priest can be required to report this.

[MrEdd]

So on the list of advocates for abolishing age of consent today:

Jerry Sandusky
wideawake
...

[Salvation]

Read this book. The Seal of Confession will remain intact.

[marshmallow]

Excellent analysis.

I'd add one more point to your bulleted list.

The seal of confession allows those who are tempted towards sexual crimes or have entertained thoughts of them but have not yet physically committed one, to be spiritually helped and counseled in complete confidence. Confession therefore becomes a source of help and crime prevention for those who otherwise might not avail themselves of such an opportunity due to the fear of police being alerted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Five Reasons Why This Law Is Meaningless(Link)

[marshmallow]

Nope. Can't come up with a scenario where I see any reason to make religious exceptions on criminal accessory laws.

I can.

Read post #4.

"Criminal accessory laws", as they apply to the confessional are counterproductive, unenforceable (absent wiretapping) and entirely unnecessary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Confesors don't cover up for child rapists. Name one case in, oh, the last 100 years in which that was even alleged to have happened.

Confessors are canonically required, in the case of a confessed felony, to tell the penitent that he can't be absolved unless he confesses to the police. Under ordinary circumstances, the priest wouldn't even know who the offender is anyway, since confessions are anonymous.

You knew that, right?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Govenrment properly enforcing order" is not synonymous with "Government forbidding the valid administration of a Sacrament" --- which is exactly what violating the Seal of Confession would be.

A priest should rather die, than do that.

[marshmallow]

Note that the edict in question also does not address people who have not physically committed a crime.

Not yet. But it will. Eventually. Prevention is better than cure, right?

Therefore, in the interests of preventing crime and to help the children, we feel it has now become necessary to not only identify those who have previously committed such crimes but also to identify and monitor those who have an admitted inclination towards such actions.

Do I hear an "Amen"?

[MrEdd]

If it doesn’t and hasn’t happened, then the edict is merely stating the obvious for effect and there would be zero reason to think much about it.

You knew that, right?