Confession And The Confessional Seal In The Mormon Church

[MiserereNobis]

Is the penitent required to turn himself over to the authorities for penitence to be complete?  Are there any disciplinary actions taken?  Is any measure taken at all to protect the child?

 

Public penance can only be given if the sin is public knowledge.  If the sin is private, the penance must be private, too.  Absolution cannot be made contingent upon disclosure.  The priest can withhold absolution if he has reason to believe the penitent is not sincere, but there has to be positive proof of that -- the priest has to assume sincerity unless there is evidence contrary (like if the penitent says he's going to do it again tomorrow or he doesn't care what God thinks, etc... but then why would he be in the confessional in the first place?).

 

The cover-up of pedophilia did not come about because of the confessional seal.  It came about because wicked priests and bishops ignored victims or did nothing when they found out, but the finding out was not through the confessional, like in the CNN article posted above.

[MiserereNobis]

This is hard for me.  Can you help me understand why a catholic priest would not be excommunicated for molesting a child, but would be excommunicated for turning in a child molester?  Why is the protection of this seal more sacred than a child?

 

Excommunication, with one exception (abortion), is rather rare in the Catholic world.  It is not used as a punishment for the most severe sins in the same way it is used in Mormonism (at least as far as my understanding goes).  This might be an interesting topic for another thread.  Anyways, excommunication in Catholicism is used to protect the sanctity of the Church, Her teachings, and Her Sacraments.  Here is a list of automatic excommunications: apostasy, heresy, schism, desecration of the Eucharist, physical force against the Pope, attempted sacramental absolution of a partner in adultery, ordination of a bishop without a Papal mandate, violation of the sacramental seal of confession, and procurement of a completed abortion.

 

So yes, notice that murder, rape, etc, etc, are not listed there.  The commonality, except for abortion, is that offense goes against the Church, Her teachings, and Her Sacraments.

 

 

One more question out of curiosity.  What if a child abuser confessed to molesting a child on Monday, and then the child comes in on Tuesday and reports that he has been molested by this man.  Could the priest then report the molestation to the authorities using the child's accusations instead of the man's confession?

 

Absolutely, and he should, based on the child's accusations.  He could not reveal the prior confession of the man, though.

 

ETA: the list of offenses above incur automatic excommunication.  Bishops (including, of course, the Pope) can declare excommunications for other reasons.

Edited March 19, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

pogi, hi.

 

Automatic excommunication is for breaking the seal of the confessional without regard to the subject matter.

 

It might be helpful to know that "automatic excommunication" doesn't involve any kind of ecclesiastical trial. The priest is instructed that even if nobody finds out, even if he is never prosecuted for it, breaking the seal of the confessional carries with it all of the penalties associated with a formal declaration after a trial. Most of these penalties are interior. He might continue to say Mass, and administer other Sacraments, but if he has incurred excommunication without his superiors knowing it, he still knows he is committing sacrilege.

 

What good will it do the child abuser to deny him the right to the Sacraments? Nobody likes to confess their sins. It can be assumed that anyone who confesses, whether or not they might be liable to civil penalties, needs the Sacraments more than ever. Throw them in jail AND deny them any hope of reconciling with God?

 

On the other hand, a priest who would deliberately break the confessional seal has abused a sacrament. He cannot feign surprise. Every priest knows about the confessional seal. He has shown himself unworthy of his priesthood and is denied licit access to the Sacraments. Ultimately, the Church is conscious of its mission to save sinners. As important as we all might agree that it is to identify and prosecute child abusers who repeat their crimes, we cannot agree that the priest must be turned into an agent for the state. I do not at all believe that repeat child abusers are going to confession all the time. It just wouldn't make any sense. Why go through that if you have no firm purpose to amend your actions and avoid the near occasions of sin? Because of the requirements for a valid confession, it seems very reasonable to me to suppose that the better way to reduce child abuse, is when they do present themselves before God's tribunal as penitents, that we offer them hope of forgiveness. I'm all for the cops if they catch them first. If they go to a priest first, they still have to stop their sin.

 

I knew someone who used to badmouth some Catholic friends of his in high school because they would supposedly misbehave and carouse all weekend and then go to confession for it, as though priests will happily hear people say they did wrong and absolve them when they know they have every intention of doing it again. This fellow didn't have the slightest clue what confession was like and he was wrong about his buddies. Even if you fool the priest, If you secretly intend to continue your sin...guess what? Sacrilege! Oh joy, on top of the cruddy things I have done in the world, now I have behaved like a beast in the church. Hell just got deeper and any true valid confession got exponentially harder. Nobody does this. There is no upside to going to confession UNLESS you intend to quit the sin. Maybe that will help to explain why the Church has judged it to be best to have a rule that every sin that is confessed must be kept private.  

Edited March 19, 2014 by 3DOP

[bluebell]

Excommunication, with one exception (abortion), is rather rare in the Catholic world. It is not used as a punishment for the most severe sins in the same way it is used in Mormonism (at least as far as my understanding goes). This might be an interesting topic for another thread. Anyways, excommunication in Catholicism is used to protect the sanctity of the Church, Her teachings, and Her Sacraments. Here is a list of automatic excommunications: apostasy, heresy, schism, desecration of the Eucharist, physical force against the Pope, attempted sacramental absolution of a partner in adultery, ordination of a bishop without a Papal mandate, violation of the sacramental seal of confession, and procurement of a completed abortion.

So yes, notice that murder, rape, etc, etc, are not listed there. The commonality, except for abortion, is that offense goes against the Church, Her teachings, and Her Sacraments.

Absolutely, and he should, based on the child's accusations. He could not reveal the prior confession of the man, though.

ETA: the list of offenses above incur automatic excommunication. Bishops (including, of course, the Pope) can declare excommunications for other reasons.

In the LDS church excommunication is not a punishment either.

It is done to protect the church and also to protect and help the sinner.

In the LDS religion some sins are so serious that repentance requires the person to start over, so to speak. They have broken their covenants so completely that they must start from sctratch, back at the strait gate, to be able to enter the covenant relationship again with Christ.

Can you explain why murder is not an excommunicable sin but abortion is in the Catholic Church?

Edited March 19, 2014 by bluebell

[katherine the great]

I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for the confession process in the Catholic church, although I don't think I would be able to have a clear conscience if I had knowledge of such a crime (pedophilia, murder, etc.) and could not report it.  On the other hand, if such a person is driven by his/her conscience to confess, they would be more likely to do so if they were guaranteed confidentiality.  Maybe the priest would instruct the penitent person to confess to the law and try to make restitution to the victim or their families.  LDS people have no such guarantee, that is true.  One of my family members confessed to adultery.  Her Bishop called the Stake President and a disciplinary court was convened.  She was required to confess her sin in detail not only to the Bishop, but to the entire high council--a lone woman in a room with fifteen men!  I'm sorry, but I think that is just wrong, and almost indecent.  While there is a high probability of confidentiality in a sin of lesser degree than adultery, anything to a greater degree will not be confidential by a long shot.

[mfbukowski]

Miserere- here is a longer response

 

If the perpetrator confesses to the bishop it would be considered priveledged communication.  The bishop would, however, encourgage that person to turn themselves in to the police.  If the bishop is told of a crime, say by the victim or another with knowledge of the crime, the bishop would have an obligation to report it to the authorities.  In either case, I believe, the bishop is instructed to call the church hot line first to insure that everything is done properly.

The bishop would not be "required" (I know you did not say that) to do so, but most members know that as part of the repentance process, we believe that restitution would have to be made, if possible.

 

So even in coming to the Bishop to make a confession, the member would be aware that doing so would require him to "face the music".

 

Most confessions are made quite long after the event, in some cases 20 or 30 years, to "get them off of the chest" of the person burdened by their misdeeds.

 

It is important to understand that for Catholics, the priest is actually the one who pronounces words forgiving the individual as a representative of Christ.   The sinner cannot be forgiven without confessing their sins to the priest.  So the need for confidentiality is much greater in the Catholic church.  The priest is obliged to act as Christ would act, since the priest is actually the one who pronounces the person "absolved" and in so doing, learns the same level of confidential information that an LDS member would simply confess in prayer with the Lord himself.

 

The function of confession in the LDS scheme is different than in the Catholic.

 

For LDS, one confesses one's sins to the Lord, and the Bishop becomes more like a counselor who's function is to advise the person how to fully repent of his sins.  The Bishop does not forgive the sins- he only facilitates the person getting back into full fellowship in the church, and specifies what must be done- as a judge might- to "pay one's debt to society, and in this case, to God and the church.

 

So from a Catholic point of view, one might say that the Bishop does not pronounce absolution, but only makes sure that the "penance" is correctly administered.  Absolution comes only from God.  Because of this, the confidentiality requirements are different in the two churches.

 

In cases of infidelity, the Bishop will probably require that the offended spouse be notified, so that the problem can be worked out.  In cases of a major theft, he will probably recommend that restitution be made if possible, and that may include civil punishment.  Typically of course the Bishop would not tell the spouse, but after the offender confesses to the offended, the Bishop may take on the role of marriage counselor, or recommend the couple see a professional, and perhaps the Bishop would pay for it with church funds if it could not be afforded by the couple.

 

Of course all this would be done in total confidence.  Yet in doing so, some may know that "something is going on" even if they do not know what.  So typically in a case like the one above, the Bishop would have a bill to pay for the counseling.  He would give it to the Ward Clerk to pay.  Now the Clerk knows that the Jones couple is seeing a counselor, but he would not know why.

 

In all cases like this, each person who "needs to know" would be carefully instructed to tell no one else including one's spouse.

 

Perhaps the Bishop would contact the Stake President for advice on how to handle the issue, or to approve funds.

 

Perhaps the Bishop would call the Legal Hotline specifically set up for Bishops and Stake Presidents for legal advice in cases of abuse, or any other legal issue, like perhaps someone confessing the theft of a large amount of money, etc.  So those folks would know, but typically no names are mentioned- just generalities.

 

So as one who has done it many times that is the way it works.

 

In some cases, the Bishop would not disclose anything to anyone, because to do so would destroy the repentance process for the individual.  That is the loneliest feeling there is

[mfbukowski]

I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for the confession process in the Catholic church, although I don't think I would be able to have a clear conscience if I had knowledge of such a crime (pedophilia, murder, etc.) and could not report it.  On the other hand, if such a person is driven by his/her conscience to confess, they would be more likely to do so if they were guaranteed confidentiality.  Maybe the priest would instruct the penitent person to confess to the law and try to make restitution to the victim or their families.  LDS people have no such guarantee, that is true.  One of my family members confessed to adultery.  Her Bishop called the Stake President and a disciplinary court was convened.  She was required to confess her sin in detail not only to the Bishop, but to the entire high council--a lone woman in a room with fifteen men!  I'm sorry, but I think that is just wrong, and almost indecent.  While there is a high probability of confidentiality in a sin of lesser degree than adultery, anything to a greater degree will not be confidential by a long shot.

It is only necessary to have a court in a stake council if the offender is a Melchizadek priesthood holder.

 

That was a very very poor decision and I have no idea why it was done.

 

That said, let me ask you a question.

 

You are the bishop and someone confesses infidelity and to tell the spouse would (because you KNOW what the spouse would do because you know that person) destroy the marriage.

 

There are several small kids involved.

 

Do you require the offender to confess to the spouse and destroy the marriage, or don't you?  The person is sorrowful and swears it will never happen again.

 

Do you hold a court- just a Ward court?  Do you let anyone else know at all?

[rpn]

Bishops have the same obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the confessional.   He can't even speak to the SP about it without permission.   If there are not two witnesses, without the penitent's confession and he/she declines to agree to have that included, then disciplinary action cannot be taken. 

 

Bishops also have to protect the innocent.  So the hotline will likely tell him to ask an abused wife or the mother of children or children he knows are abused to come in for an interview and ask them if there is anything in their life for which they need help ---- giving them an opportunity to disclose information that will not be under confessional seal.

[katherine the great]

It is only necessary to have a court in a stake council if the offender is a Melchizadek priesthood holder.

 

That was a very very poor decision and I have no idea why it was done.

 

That said, let me ask you a question.

 

You are the bishop and someone confesses infidelity and to tell the spouse would (because you KNOW what the spouse would do because you know that person) destroy the marriage.

 

There are several small kids involved.

 

Do you require the offender to confess to the spouse and destroy the marriage, or don't you?  The person is sorrowful and swears it will never happen again.

 

Do you hold a court- just a Ward court?  Do you let anyone else know at all?

Interesting.  I had understood that the Bishop was required to contact the Stake President whenever a confession was made where there was a temple covenant broken.  This incident was about 10 years ago so maybe the process has changed or maybe she did give permission for the Stake President to be contacted (although, knowing her, I highly doubt it.)  It was an incredibly humiliating process for her and did her no good whatsoever.

In answer to your question:  In such a case I would absolutely not require the offender to confess to the spouse.  That should be done solely at the discretion of the offender. My thought is that most wives probably would eventually confess to their spouse if their conscience dictates, but to punish the children for the stupidity of the parent is never a good idea. I think she should suffer in silence.  I would, however, work with the confessor to be sure that she is diligent in completely removing herself from the temptation of this other man.  If she works with him, she needs to get another job.  If he is a neighbor, she needs to look for another residence.  Women tend to cheat because they form an emotional bond with another person and that bond needs to be broken completely and permanently and she needs to turn her heart back to her husband completely.

[MiserereNobis]

Good response, mfb.  Thanks.

 

In some cases, the Bishop would not disclose anything to anyone, because to do so would destroy the repentance process for the individual.  That is the loneliest feeling there is

 

Yes, the priest that I am friends with that I mentioned earlier said this to me -- it is a lonely burden to carry the knowledge of all those sins.  He says that hearing confessions has always been the hardest part of being a priest for him, but he takes all those sins he hears and offers them up to God when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  I thought it was a beautiful way to deal with such a burden.

[Alan]

Here in the UK, it would be a criminal offence for a Bishop to withhold information he received through the voluntary confession of a member, if that confession contained details of a serious criminal offence. This would include child abuse, murder, rape, incest etc.

 

The Bishop would encourage the member to inform the authorities, but make it clear he would tell them if the member didn't.

 

I believe the same applies to all religious authorities, including Roman Catholic priests.

[MiserereNobis]

Here in the UK, it would be a criminal offence for a Bishop to withhold information he received through the voluntary confession of a member, if that confession contained details of a serious criminal offence. This would include child abuse, murder, rape, incest etc.

 

The Bishop would encourage the member to inform the authorities, but make it clear he would tell them if the member didn't.

 

I believe the same applies to all religious authorities, including Roman Catholic priests.

 

I peeked around a bit on the web and couldn't find any definitive statement that it applies to priests who hear confessions (remember, that is different than just talking to a priest).  If there were such a law, however, priests would not obey it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I was executive secretary for my bishop, and would schedule appointments and often be the only other person in the building when he would meet with people.  My basic guidelines were, 15 min per appointment, unless directed otherwise.  Occasionally a request would come to make a certain appointment the last appointment of the day.  Basically, that was the appointment which might stretch to last an hour or two.  Occasionally, after the meeting, the bishop and the person would come out, the person would always head for the door, the bishop would come to thank me for staying and say goodbye.  Often both looked utterly wiped out, but somehow lighter.  Sometimes, the bishop would say something vague like "Well Bro LM, we did some good today."

 

I have a respect for people who place themselves in situations (for the right reasons) to hear such things and work with such people.  Bishops, priests, addiction counselors, shrinks.

 

I'm working my way through that CAF link, MN, thanks again.  Still learning and thinking.  Finding charitable ways to think about things.  Still having a hard time with "I will always act to protect an innocent child from clear and imminent danger, unless I hear about the threat from someone who starts with 'forgive me father for I have sinned', and refuses my counsel to turn himself in.  Other than prayer, my mouth's shut in that case.".  Still absorbing the reasons why.  They seem to be a combination of "we've been doing it that way since before your country and system of laws even existed", and "God says that's the right way to do it."  Neither one really appeals to me.

Edited March 20, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[pogi]

Public penance can only be given if the sin is public knowledge.  If the sin is private, the penance must be private, too. 

 

What do you mean by public penance? How public does it have to be?  A serial child molester is hardly a private issue which only affects the sinner.  The repercussions can last generations upon generations. 

 

Absolutely, and he should, based on the child's accusations.  He could not reveal the prior confession of the man, though.

 

I am happy to hear that.  Let me give you a scenario and let me know why it would or would not be breaking the seal.  A child molester reports that he has been molesting many children and gives you the names of these children who are in your congregation.  He reports that he wants to get better but fears that he is a sex addict and is too weak to stop, and will likely continue to molest children.  You then go interview these children without revealing any information which has been disclosed to you in confession.  After building a relationship of trust, you ask the child, have you ever been touched inappropriately by anybody.  One of the children reveals that so and so has been molesting them.  You now have the child's testimony without breaking the seal and could then go to the authorities with this information and prevent generations of pain and suffering. 

[MiserereNobis]

What do you mean by public penance? How public does it have to be?  A serial child molester is hardly a private issue which only affects the sinner.  The repercussions can last generations upon generations.

 

Public knowledge means that people in the public know about it.  An example I've heard used before is if a doctor runs an abortion clinic and then comes in to confess to performing abortions, part of the penance could be to close down the clinic.  So, if the action of the sinner are public knowledge, then the penance assigned can be of a public nature.

 

Let's not forget that there is a difference between required penance and counsel.  A priest can certainly counsel, plead, beg, advise, etc, etc, that a person turn themselves in, but the priest could not require it as a condition for receiving absolution.

 

I am happy to hear that.  Let me give you a scenario and let me know why it would or would not be breaking the seal.  A child molester reports that he has been molesting many children and gives you the names of these children who are in your congregation.  He reports that he wants to get better but fears that he is a sex addict and is too weak to stop, and will likely continue to molest children.  You then go interview these children without revealing any information which has been disclosed to you in confession.  After building a relationship of trust, you ask the child, have you ever been touched inappropriately by anybody.  One of the children reveals that so and so has been molesting them.  You now have the child's testimony without breaking the seal and could then go to the authorities with this information and prevent generations of pain and suffering. 

 

I'm not a priest, obviously, nor have I received any priestly training or formation, so I don't know the super-specifics to be able to answer your question here.  It seems like the priest could do what you suggest (talk to the children), but the rules on the seal are so strict that I don't know for sure.

 

I imagine that if I were a priest had a serial child rapist confess these things to me, after the confession I would seek counsel from my Bishop, without revealing any identifiable info, as to what to do.

 

It would be a tough position to be in, for sure.

[pogi]

 I do not at all believe that repeat child abusers are going to confession all the time. It just wouldn't make any sense. Why go through that if you have no firm purpose to amend your actions and avoid the near occasions of sin? 

 

Thanks for your responses. 

 

I do believe that repeat child abusers are going to confession.  These are often people who feel incredibly guilty for their actions but have a compulsive or addictive traits in this regard.  They are often called sex addicts.  One problem that I am sure is not unique to the LDS is pornography use.  People often feel horribly guilty and co to confession hoping to make things right and clean up their life.  They often don't realize how difficult that it can actually be to stop and have to return to confession on a regular basis to receive further spiritual direction and support until they are recovered.

 

 

What good will it do the child abuser to deny him the right to the Sacraments? Nobody likes to confess their sins. It can be assumed that anyone who confesses, whether or not they might be liable to civil penalties, needs the Sacraments more than ever. Throw them in jail AND deny them any hope of reconciling with God?

 

Criminal in prison can still receive this sacrament can't they?

 

I would reword your last sentence to say - throw them in jail AND deny them the opportunity to abuse another innocent child, pay the restitution for his sins as he deserves, and have a lot of time to reflect and reconcile with God where children are safe. 

[MiserereNobis]

Criminal in prison can still receive this sacrament can't they?

 

I would reword your last sentence to say - throw them in jail AND deny them the opportunity to abuse another innocent child, pay the restitution for his sins as he deserves, and have a lot of time to reflect and reconcile with God where children are safe. 

 

Yes, the still can.  My priest friend that I've mentioned a couple of times now is the chaplain for the penitentiary near our town.  He goes twice a week to visit, offer Mass, and hear confessions.

 

Just to be clear, neither 3DOP nor I (nor any faithful Catholic) would argue that these folk should not go to jail.  When the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church broke I was sickened -- I wanted those ******* priests and bishops to suffer the greatest punishments possible for hurting innocent children/teens, breaking their sacred trust as priests, and staining the Bride of Christ.  These criminals should go to jail -- but the Catholic Church teaches that the confessional seal is essential to the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance, so the confession cannot be used to put them in jail.

 

I'm sure you all understand that we are not arguing for leniency for abusers, but I just wanted it to be clear that it is about the inherent nature of the Sacrament, not about "protecting " per se, the penitent.

 

ETA:  oooo, my post was automatically edited for profanity.  Excuse my language, but I wanted to express myself forcefully on the situation.

Edited March 20, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Alan]

I peeked around a bit on the web and couldn't find any definitive statement that it applies to priests who hear confessions (remember, that is different than just talking to a priest).  If there were such a law, however, priests would not obey it.

 

The law was tightened up and more clearly defined recently, largely because of the child abuse scandal in the RC Church and other organisations. If a priest failed to pass on such information to law enforcement authorities, and it later became evident that the priest had done this, he would be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. It is also possible that the RC Church would be prosecuted too if the priest was acting under their instruction.

The same would apply to a Mormon Bishop, an Anglican vicar, a teacher, a doctor and so on.

There is no religious exemption.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting.  I had understood that the Bishop was required to contact the Stake President whenever a confession was made where there was a temple covenant broken.  This incident was about 10 years ago so maybe the process has changed or maybe she did give permission for the Stake President to be contacted (although, knowing her, I highly doubt it.)  It was an incredibly humiliating process for her and did her no good whatsoever.

In answer to your question:  In such a case I would absolutely not require the offender to confess to the spouse.  That should be done solely at the discretion of the offender. My thought is that most wives probably would eventually confess to their spouse if their conscience dictates, but to punish the children for the stupidity of the parent is never a good idea. I think she should suffer in silence.  I would, however, work with the confessor to be sure that she is diligent in completely removing herself from the temptation of this other man.  If she works with him, she needs to get another job.  If he is a neighbor, she needs to look for another residence.  Women tend to cheat because they form an emotional bond with another person and that bond needs to be broken completely and permanently and she needs to turn her heart back to her husband completely.

Agreed.

[pogi]

Yes, the still can.  My priest friend that I've mentioned a couple of times now is the chaplain for the penitentiary near our town.  He goes twice a week to visit, offer Mass, and hear confessions.

 

Just to be clear, neither 3DOP nor I (nor any faithful Catholic) would argue that these folk should not go to jail.  When the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church broke I was sickened -- I wanted those ******* priests and bishops to suffer the greatest punishments possible for hurting innocent children/teens, breaking their sacred trust as priests, and staining the Bride of Christ.  These criminals should go to jail -- but the Catholic Church teaches that the confessional seal is essential to the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance, so the confession cannot be used to put them in jail.

 

I'm sure you all understand that we are not arguing for leniency for abusers, but I just wanted it to be clear that it is about the inherent nature of the Sacrament, not about "protecting " per se, the penitent.

 

ETA:  oooo, my post was automatically edited for profanity.  Excuse my language, but I wanted to express myself forcefully on the situation.

 

I understand.  The pedophilia priest crisis is a whole other issue.  I know that all Catholics were sickened over it and that the Catholic church has taken great strides to make amends.  My questions are more related to non-priest confessions. 

 

 

I'm sure you all understand that we are not arguing for leniency for abusers, but I just wanted it to be clear that it is about the inherent nature of the Sacrament, not about "protecting " per se, the penitent.

 

I understand.  To be clear, for me the concern is not so much that the penitent are being protected as much as it is that the children are not being protected or treated, or anything.  Imprisoning a serial molester is just one easy way of protecting children What is the moral obligation to the children in this scenario?  It seems to me that some kind of intervention could be made for the child without breaking the seal.   Without any treatment, these children have a much higher risk of becoming offenders themselves as they age, and have a much higher rate of acting out in other ways which negatively affects entire families and societies.  It is not just one soul that is affected.

 

I would not want to be a priest in that situation.  I don't believe that I could keep silent knowing that other children may possibly be molested.   

 

In the LDS church, a part of the repentance process that is required is restitution as much as is possible. A simple example would be that if I stole your bike, in order to make penance complete through restitution, I would have to return your bike.  Is this a part of the Catholic penance process as well?  Does anybody know what kind of restitution is required in the LDS church in a child molestation case?

Edited March 20, 2014 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

The law was tightened up and more clearly defined recently, largely because of the child abuse scandal in the RC Church and other organisations. If a priest failed to pass on such information to law enforcement authorities, and it later became evident that the priest had done this, he would be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. It is also possible that the RC Church would be prosecuted too if the priest was acting under their instruction.

The same would apply to a Mormon Bishop, an Anglican vicar, a teacher, a doctor and so on.

There is no religious exemption.

 

Here is an article that seems to say it is not as clear-cut as you present it.

 

S 2(1) of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 created the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to disclose to the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable any information that the defendant knew or believed might be material to the prosecution of an offence committed by another person against a child. During proceedings in the Oireachtas on the Bill there was what can only be described as a major row about whether or not clergy would be prosecuted under s 2(1) if they failed to inform the Garda should someone admit to such an offence in the confessional. In the end, the Government finessed the issue; and s 2(4) of the Act as published states that the section

“… is without prejudice to any right or privilege that may arise in any criminal proceedings by virtue of any rule of law or other enactment entitling a person to refuse to disclose information”.

During the second stage debate in the Seanad the Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan Shatter, said that the purpose of s 2(4) was

“… to allow the courts to use their normal discretion in considering issues of privilege. There has been much media comment suggesting the Bill has an effect on the ‘seal of confession’ or sacerdotal privilege. As is the position with regard to the 1998 Act, there are no defences in this legislation which would specially apply to information received in the confessional box, nor is there a specific provision relating to the confessional. It will continue to be a matter for a court before which a person is prosecuted to determine whether there is a particular privilege or whether it applies in the circumstances of a particular case”.

 

In short, the courts would have to decide individual cases on the facts.

[mfbukowski]

Good response, mfb.  Thanks.

 

 

Yes, the priest that I am friends with that I mentioned earlier said this to me -- it is a lonely burden to carry the knowledge of all those sins.  He says that hearing confessions has always been the hardest part of being a priest for him, but he takes all those sins he hears and offers them up to God when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  I thought it was a beautiful way to deal with such a burden.

That's about the only way.

 

This is a total derail but I thought I would share this with you here so that others might read it-

 

I was reading about the Orthodox Church in America and their view of the Eucharist, and I found it pretty much right-on with my personal view of the LDS Sacrament.  When I share my view with LDS they often say that my view sounds "pretty Catholic" but it is still acceptable within LDS parameters.  But I found it interesting that as far as I can tell, in both the issue of "transubstantiation" and the trinity, I think the Orthodox view is much much closer to the LDS view than the Catholic view.

 

But I could easily state LDS beliefs about the Sacrament in virtually the same terms as they are stated here:

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

What I really like about this view is that the "mystical" and "symbolic" are seen as just as "real" as anything. We experience things as imbued with meaning. The Catholic experience of seeing a crucifix is quite different than the LDS experience of the exact same scene. Yet to each of us, those feelings make up what is "real". That is VERY William James.

Edit:

Best of all- "real presence" without "transubstantiation"

Edited March 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

That's about the only way.

 

This is a total derail but I thought I would share this with you here so that others might read it-

 

I was reading about the Orthodox Church in America and their view of the Eucharist, and I found it pretty much right-on with my personal view of the LDS Sacrament.  When I share my view with LDS they often say that my view sounds "pretty Catholic" but it is still acceptable within LDS parameters.  But I found it interesting that as far as I can tell, in both the issue of "transubstantiation" and the trinity, I think the Orthodox view is much much closer to the LDS view than the Catholic view.

 

But I could easily state LDS beliefs about the Sacrament in virtually the same terms as they are stated here:

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

What I really like about this view is that the "mystical" and "symbolic" are seen as just as "real" as anything. We experience things as imbued with meaning. The Catholic experience of seeing a crucifix is quite different than the LDS experience of the exact same scene. Yet to each of us, those feelings make up what is "real". That is VERY William James.

Edit:

Best of all- "real presence" without "transubstantiation"

 

I can agree with this (and I think other Catholics would, too).  My understanding is that both Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe in the Real Presence but might differ in ways that are not substantial (trans or otherwise, ha) as to what that means or how it comes about.  The Real Presence is key to the traditional Christian understanding of Eucharist.

 

Despite our long running schism, the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, when it comes to theology and doctrine, are very very minor, which is why both sides accept the other as having valid Apostolic succession and valid Sacraments.

 

I, too, don't want to put "real" and "mystical" in opposition, and I think the mystical Saints wouldn't, either.

 

Thanks for the quote and brief derail.  Any further derailment should probably be taken to its own thread, eh?

[mfbukowski]

I can agree with this (and I think other Catholics would, too).  My understanding is that both Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe in the Real Presence but might differ in ways that are not substantial (trans or otherwise, ha) as to what that means or how it comes about.  The Real Presence is key to the traditional Christian understanding of Eucharist.

 

Despite our long running schism, the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, when it comes to theology and doctrine, are very very minor, which is why both sides accept the other as having valid Apostolic succession and valid Sacraments.

 

I, too, don't want to put "real" and "mystical" in opposition, and I think the mystical Saints wouldn't, either.

 

Thanks for the quote and brief derail.  Any further derailment should probably be taken to its own thread, eh?

A new thread?  Meh- then I would have to start all over and explain my objections to substance theology, what Pragmatism is, and deal with those who have no clue what I am talking about.  You could start one if you like, and then you could reply to the others and I could just talk to you.

 

Just one more comment from this side and then if it bothers you to reply on this thread please pm me.  

 

I just wonder how all these different theologies deal with the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ and the Father being of "one substance".

 

I find it really ironic that Protestants subscribe to the theology of Thomas Aquinas, since their criterion of being a "Christian" includes subscription to the Nicene Creed.

 

I guess nobody worries about it, or ignores the words or just writes it off as a mystery?  I would actually prefer they just came out and said "I believe in the Trinity which is a Holy Mystery"

 

It's obviously a biggie for me.  So I see the above Orthodox view of the Eucharist as being half way to doing away with substance theology, but if it doesn't extend to the Nicene Creed, in my opinion, it doesn't go far enough.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the Catholic Church, priests are under the most strict rules to not divulge anything they hear in the confessional without the penitents consent.  This is so strict that even the threat of death does not exempt the priest.  Any priest who breaks this seal is automatically and immediately excommunicated (which means that no sentence needs to be pronounced -- it just happens).  The excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  Yes, it's that serious.

 

I've spoken with priests who say that sometimes this is difficult because they will hear serious confessions with legal ramifications, such as child abuse.  One priest says he does his best to get this people to turn themselves in or to give him permission to turn them in, but without their permission there is nothing he can do.

 

This seal is upheld under law, too, much like the lawyer-client privilege.

 

Is there such a seal with confession in Mormonism?  Are there rules for when confessed sins can be reported?  This also brings up the question -- what sins are required for confession?

 

Thanks!

Bishop cannot conceal confessions of murder, or if someone threatens murder or harm to another, nor rape, nor child molestation. Nor should they...