Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Seal of the confession


Mr Walker

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Have you seen that movie I Confess its a pretty good story about this discussion.

It rings a bell.

I  just googled it. Yes i dd watch it sometime back in the dim dark ages of  my past. :) 

A very challenging film if i remember rightly, with some great actors. and of course directed by the great Hitchcock  A bit of an artificial resolution, in that the priest never broke the seal, but natural justice or deux ex machina  prevailed in the end. 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Good questions I also tend to the view that such reports under confession should be reported, but I see one problem  At present  a priest who finds out about an abused child and is torn about what to do can report it anonymously without giving details to an agency which is then obliged to investigate,     thus potentially rescuing the child.

If offenders know that priests might break the confessional they simply wont confess and the priest will never have  the opportunity to protect the child via reporting . 

Philosophically and without any experience of Catholicism)  if i was a priest who heard details of abuse i would report the abuse anonymously (as one can do in Australia ) but in a way tha t protected me as the source. Otherwise i WOULD be excommunicated from the church, if found out, and for any devout Catholic, let alone a priest, that is a very hard thing to face  for going public   

The conjecture is if a paedophile would make the confession on the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree 

But as above.  At present, if the priest goes public under his own name, in reporting, or in giving evidence, he WILL be excommunicated by the church.  That is a big ask, which is why i think an anonymous tip off would be better. eg " I have information that Joe Brown,  a 12 year old boy from Riverside Road is being sexually abused  and want to make a formal notification  of tha t fact. " 

Is there currently any difference between immediate or after-the-fact reporting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The conjecture is if a paedophile would make the confession on the first place. 

True, but if the y did not, then the issue never arises.  It is only relevant where one does confess to a crime under the seal of the confession. I guess it should not be restricted to child sexual abuse either Murder etc., and other crimes, would be the same in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Is there currently any difference between immediate or after-the-fact reporting?

Not sure what you mean.   . Generally a person is required to report suspected child abuse as soon as they have reasonable grounds to suspect it is occurring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

True, but if the y did not, then the issue never arises.  It is only relevant where one does confess to a crime under the seal of the confession. I guess it should not be restricted to child sexual abuse either Murder etc., and other crimes, would be the same in principle.

I think it will be unlikely that the issue will arise.  And the case where Brennan hard a confession of murder, it was totally anonymous. He didn't know the identity of the victim or the murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2018 at 2:10 AM, Mr Walker said:

Australia has had mandatory  reporting laws since the 1970s, first for people like teachers, then for others  However there has never been a law specifically compelling priests to reveal  information given under the seal of the confessional  These new laws address this. I cant find ANY jurisdiction actually specifically mandating or compelling a priest to make public information fromthe confessionaL and i cant find any priest, anywhere, charged with refusing to do so (although this doesn't mean it hasn't happened.)  

Hi Walker

Likely because they do report some instances, I would think that in most cases unless a perp is known to have strong religious influences in their profile that the police wouldn't bother talking to a priest so the onus is on the priest to come forward on their own.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerald Ridsdale gave evidence to the Royal Commission on day 83 of case study 28.

He confirmed he was not honest in what he confessed to his confessor. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is good. It is patently absurd that religion gets a pass to not divulge knowledge of crimes. If you know that a crime is happening and you don't alert the authorities, you deserve to be charged as an accessory. Especially when the crimes involve child abuse. But, Christians have spent the last several thousand years making sure that everyone knows that they don't care about the welfare of children, so I shouldn't be surprised. Absolutely disgusting.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any update on this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 13/07/2018 at 5:45 PM, danydandan said:

Any update on this ?

Been off line for a while  The legal proceedings take a lot of time The Arch bishop involved has appealed the conviction and refuses to resign while he is still appealing the  sentence..

He maintains his innocence . There apparently is no   procedure within the church to force him to resign, as long as  he is appealing (and many civil   employers would be in the same boat )  

There has been a lot of political pressure, and some from within the church, for him to resign, but apparently he believes he is innocent and thus should not resign, which might indicate guilt.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/catholic-archbishop-philip-wilson-to-appeal-sentence-20180704-p4zpgo.html

Maybe for legal reasons, there has been no media reporting on this  since the first week in July. 

There has been some commentary and third party opinions reported .

  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/20/australias-catholic-priests-urge-pope-to-sack-adelaide-archbishop-philip-wilson

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Been off line for a while  The legal proceedings take a lot of time The Arch bishop involved has appealed the conviction and refuses to resign while he is still appealing the  sentence..

He maintains his innocence . There apparently is no   procedure within the church to force him to resign, as long as  he is appealing (and many civil   employers would be in the same boat )  

There has been a lot of political pressure, and some from within the church, for him to resign, but apparently he believes he is innocent and thus should not resign, which might indicate guilt.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/catholic-archbishop-philip-wilson-to-appeal-sentence-20180704-p4zpgo.html

Maybe for legal reasons, there has been no media reporting on this  since the first week in July. 

There has been some commentary and third party opinions reported .

  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/20/australias-catholic-priests-urge-pope-to-sack-adelaide-archbishop-philip-wilson

 

Huh?  I thought this was bout the Seal of Confession.

The laws were passed last year.

Quote

Background

The Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 replaces the Children's Protection Act 1993 and ensures that keeping children and young people safe from harm is paramount.

The laws passed Parliament in July 2017, following consultation with the community and the child protection sector. The Act is being implemented in two phases - the first phase commenced on 26 February 2018 and the remaining sections of the Act will commence in October 2018.

The Act will underpin South Australia’s child protection system and improve safeguards for some of the state’s most vulnerable people.  

More information about the Act can be found on the Department for Child Protection website.

https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/newsroom/changes-mandatory-reporting-ministers-religion

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Huh?  I thought this was bout the Seal of Confession.

The laws were passed last year.

https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/newsroom/changes-mandatory-reporting-ministers-religion

 

The op outlined TWO interesting things/cases  And yes most of the discussion has been about the seal of the confession.

I did assume Danydandan was asking about the  case of the arch bishop, precisely BECAUSE  it is ongoing . As you point out, the law on confessions has passed, although there is division among the clergy as to whether they will obey it.

If they do the y face excommunication from the church  which, for some, would be a worse punishment than anything a civil court could impose on them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They see it as not in their job description, honestly.

They're about saving souls, not lives. 

I know that's blunt, but that's what the problem is.

As long as they believe they are God's special sin eaters on Earth, then this is gonna be how they act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, they could criminalize it, but how would anyone know?

So the Church comes out and says they won't comply...

that doesn't prove anyone has confessed and they didn't report.

So what would you do?

Arrest all priests who hear confessions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Sure, they could criminalize it, but how would anyone know?

So the Church comes out and says they won't comply...

that doesn't prove anyone has confessed and they didn't report.

So what would you do?

Arrest all priests who hear confessions?

All we can really do is hope that with widespread condemnation, the priests grow a conscience. It's unlikely, but possible. Any progress in making abrahamic theists develop morals is better than no progress at all, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

They see it as not in their job description, honestly.

They're about saving souls, not lives. 

I know that's blunt, but that's what the problem is.

As long as they believe they are God's special sin eaters on Earth, then this is gonna be how they act. 

Its a common religious belief to put the next life ahead of this one. But in reality this life is a preparation for any future life, and how we behave, here and now, is who we are. 

While it requires pure belief, one can see why anyone might be prepared to die in this world, in order to have eternal life in another, or to live by rules that they think will ensure their eternal life. 

To me, a person has the right to live and die by their beliefs, but not to cause harm to others, or allow harm to come to others, because of those beliefs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Podo said:

All we can really do is hope that with widespread condemnation, the priests grow a conscience. It's unlikely, but possible. Any progress in making abrahamic theists develop morals is better than no progress at all, I guess.

Their conscience is strong, but based on other priorities encapsulated in their beliefs,  as far as i can tell .  Most priests have very strongly held, and internalised, morals, because their education, training and life makes them think about these things every day, unlike the rest of us.

  However their beliefs create different priorities about what is good, right, and necessary.

Of course there are some evil priests, just as there are evil people  among all human groups.

Morals are subjective and socially driven. One problem is that religious moralities are much slower to evolve than secular  and social ones, and generally come from a more conservative baseline to begin with.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/07/2018 at 4:50 AM, Podo said:

All we can really do is hope that with widespread condemnation, the priests grow a conscience. It's unlikely, but possible. Any progress in making abrahamic theists develop morals is better than no progress at all, I guess.

We're talking about the Seal of Confession. Do you have an example where a paedophile has sought forgiveness for abusing a child in the confessional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

We're talking about the Seal of Confession. Do you have an example where a paedophile has sought forgiveness for abusing a child in the confessional?

I do not. However, that Christians and priests are opposed to a law requiring them to talk about crimes they may hear about is massively concerning. If they've always been reporting crimes they may have heard, that's great, and they shouldn't have a problem being legally required to do so. If they have NOT been reporting them, though, then naturally they'd be against this. That so many are against it is indication of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Podo said:

I do not. However, that Christians and priests are opposed to a law requiring them to talk about crimes they may hear about is massively concerning. If they've always been reporting crimes they may have heard, that's great, and they shouldn't have a problem being legally required to do so. If they have NOT been reporting them, though, then naturally they'd be against this. That so many are against it is indication of an issue.

This law applies to child abuse only.  SA.GOV is acting on recommendations from the royal commission. The law covers a situation that no one can recall happening.

What I find odd in the case of Ridsdale is that no one reported him to the police. Mulkearns was only one in that diocese who knew.

For a bishop to have known there will have to be a whole chain of people who knew and didn't report the offender, including lay people. Follow that chain and you'll find something uncomfortable. 

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the arch bishop of Adelaide,  Phillip Wilson, has now resigned. 

It will be interesting to see what happens if he wins his appeal, and his conviction is overturned.  Technically he has then always been legally  innocent of the crime of failing to report,  yet he will probably never be able to hold another high office,  despite his legal innocence, if this happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2018 at 4:12 AM, Mr Walker said:

In my state, of South Australia,  two interesting things are happening ,

First, the highest catholic priest in the state has been convicted of failing to inform authorities of a known sex offender, several decades ago,  and faces a years gaol time, possibly on home detention due to his age and medical condition  

Second, the state is introducing laws which will legally compel priests to divulge any threats to children, or admissions of guilt,  heard under the confessional seal  

The church has already said it will not comply, as god's laws override state laws, and people's mortal souls may be put at risk if the y do not feel able to confess in secret   

They accept the state's  right to set the laws and will accept any punishment  for failing to notify, but will not break the confession. Not sure if every priest agrees, but this was the official response. Any priest who does break the seal would be excommunicated by the church under current church rules 

I am not sure if any jurisdiction, any where, has done this before, but how do people feel about it   

I know that Ireland and some american states were considering this but haven't checked what the results were. 

In the US, the confessional is protected, but information obtained otherwise is not.  If a priest hears something outside of the confessional, he is legally obligated to report it, just like anybody else, even if he also heard about it in the confessional.

The purpose of the confessional was originally to extort money for "sins."  In England, many bishops were the king's brother and got their appointments through politics.  The confessional was a way for the secular government to obtain information under the guise of confidentiality.

In view of its history, the confessional should not be protected and no one's mortal soul is at risk - the church doesn't even believe that.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.