Posted on 08/14/2017 7:41:56 PM PDT by marshmallow
The report called for legislation to criminalise priests who fail to break the seal of the confessional
Priests who do not inform the police after learning about child abuse in confession should face criminal charges, an Australian inquiry has said.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended all states and territories in the country should introduce legislation to punish priests for not breaking the seal of the confessional.
“The right to practice one’s religious beliefs must accommodate civil society’s obligation to provide for the safety of all and, in particular, children’s safety from sexual abuse,” the commission wrote.
“Institutions directed to caring for and providing services for children, including religious institutions, must provide an environment where children are safe from sexual abuse. Reporting information relevant to child sexual abuse to the police is critical to ensuring the safety of children.”
The recommendation will likely be strongly resisted by the Church, which has always guarded the absolute confidentiality of confession.
Under canon law, priests may never break the seal of the confessional, even under threat of death. Any priest who breaks the seal faces automatic excommunication.
Archbishop of Melbourne Denis J Hart said in a statement: “Confession in the Catholic Church is a spiritual encounter with God through the priest. It is a fundamental part of the freedom of religion, and it is recognised in the Law of Australia and many other countries. It must remain so here in Australia.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Is there a plague of child molesters saying confession?
Color me skeptical, this sounds like a cheap shot.
If they were to pass a law that required clergy to report crimes reported to them in confession I could see sociopaths making a game out of confessing crimes (real and fictional) just to make the priest squirm between the requirements of the civil laws and excommunication. If the “penitent” gets caught for a crime he turns the priest in saying “I confessed all this to Fr. So-and-so” and take satisfaction in seeing the priest go through legal hell. Another could go from church to church confessing fictional crimes and if one of them breaks (probably after seeing a few episodes of their brethren raked over legal coals) and reports it to the police the false penitent gets the satisfaction of outing a hypocrite and when investigated there is no evidence other that the hearsay of the priest. It is a catch 22 for the church and of little value to the authorities.
There is nothing the devil wants more than to get us to compromise with the world because every little compromise takes us further from God.
“That is precisely what you did.”
I did no such thing.
Priests are free to hear Confessions. They are not free to keep crimes against children to themselves. Well, they can do it but they should be charged as accessories after the fact. And they should be charged as accessories before the fact if the criminal behavior continues.
There’s no justification for concealing crimes against children. I don’t believe God disagrees with me. There’s not a single word in the Bible that justifies it.
Not one word.
L
That is your belief. Three quarters of the Christian world disagrees with you.
That is what you are trying to do. That and to signal your "virtue" as any good progressive does incessantly.
Exactly that.
Reporting "crimes against children is not the issue here. At all. The seal of the confessional is absolute and includes all possible crimes; murder, rape, kidnapping, child abuse, robbery....anything. Violating the seal of the confessional would have no impact on the state's ability to apprehend criminals since;
1) a priest already can demand that someone who confesses a serious crime must report himself to the police as a condition of absolution. In this way, the seal of confession remains intact and the penitent either reports himself or does not receive absolution.
2) confession is often anonymous. The priest does not know the person with whom he is speaking, as others have pointed out.
3) "individual X" told me this, is simply hearsay and easily deniable. Legally, it's of little value.
4) a criminal who knows that confession to a priest is essentially a confession to the police, will simply avoid the confessional.
So in practical terms, if the aim is improved apprehension of child molesters, this would be essentially worthless. No, the real issue here, is that the Church is claiming a priest-penitent privilege without the state's consent and beyond the state's jurisdiction. This is offensive to those who believe that the state is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and has authority to intervene wherever and whenever it feels justified. This is a Church-state confrontation. The state is saying "we'll tell you how to administer your sacraments". The Church is saying "no you won't".
Not so, if the priests had to report confessions for us to know that it happened we would not even know that it happened.
But we do know and we know why it happens and that is because they have deemed homosexuality as a choice and homosexuals targets children.
If they brought back the death penalty for it the priests would probably not hear very many confessions.
So we should not blame the priests unless they are the molesters.
The Eve of All Hallows — the Vigil of All Saints Day?
Yes, I believe what God says and based on the specific words of God found in Scripture, there is no need to confess sins to a priest. The believing Christian has direct access to God.
Conversely, there are no specific NT passages teaching us to confess sins to a "priest" - since there is no NT office of "priest" in the NT lists of church offices, including Peter's list.
Three quarters of the Christian world disagrees with you.
Here, we must disagree. Half - or more - of worldwide Romans do not attend church during the course of a year. As such, they are not practicing Christians. Of the half that do attend, it remains to be seen how many are actually believers in Christ who have eternal life.
The numbers are bogus.
That s.o.b. what was his name? oh yeah Hitler he would sure love you guys.
Canon law conflicts with Civil authority. Civil authority is divined by God himself. Remember that?
L
Fro Catholics, and especially for priests, canon law comes before civil law.
| 1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament. |
Oops For Catholics——
How very un-Biblical of them.
L
FWIW, I was being a bit snarky, but my recommendation was to leave things the way they are in the current US legal system and in the Catholic Church.
I don’t think Hitler would embrace my position.
“Civil authority is divined by God himself.”
Seems like ‘gay marriage’ is accepted by the civil authorities and not accepted by many churches because they think it is going against God.
Freegards
The problem is that “thought-crimes” are encroaching more and more into our legal system and growing much broader scope.
Scenario: A man comes from a fight in which he injured the other participant. The other man happens to be gay, or of some other hyphenated group. At one instance in the course of confessing he refers to the other party as a “lousy faggot...etc”.
It may be generally agreed by witnesses that the other party began the fight, and that the man acted in self defense. But police or prosecutors may decide to go fishing, and demand that the priest provide his notes on the “session.”
If they find that the man used demeaning language ,prejudice and animosity can be shown. They decide to prosecute and threaten to put the priest under oath. The man will likely be found guilty of a hate crime, or cop to a lesser charge at considerable expense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.