Confession And The Confessional Seal In The Mormon Church

[MiserereNobis]

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.

 

Nah, I don't want hash all that stuff out.

 

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.

 

Well, the Eastern Orthodox most definitely accept the Nicene creed and speak of the Trinity of being of one substance.  It seems to me (and I'm admittedly little schooled on Orthodoxy) that they tended to shy away from trying to explain it.  Perhaps this was partly due to the fact that the Roman Church was having to deal with rampant heresy during the protestant revolt and so clamped down on things dogmatically during the Council of Trent, where transubstantiation as we know it became declared dogma.

 

The Orthodox seem to be, at least with transubstantiation, more in-line with your statement that "substance is a Holy Mystery" since they never declared anything dogmatic about it.

 

Here is an interesting blog article I found:  http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

[mfbukowski]

Nah, I don't want hash all that stuff out.

 

 

 

Well, the Eastern Orthodox most definitely accept the Nicene creed and speak of the Trinity of being of one substance.  It seems to me (and I'm admittedly little schooled on Orthodoxy) that they tended to shy away from trying to explain it.  Perhaps this was partly due to the fact that the Roman Church was having to deal with rampant heresy during the protestant revolt and so clamped down on things dogmatically during the Council of Trent, where transubstantiation as we know it became declared dogma.

 

The Orthodox seem to be, at least with transubstantiation, more in-line with your statement that "substance is a Holy Mystery" since they never declared anything dogmatic about it.

 

Here is an interesting blog article I found:  http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

K thanks.

I like the protestant quote

 

The Eucharist? We call that Jesus. We believe it is actually the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, but we do not believe in transubstantiation. That is a Catholic thing. We believe it is a mystery. In other words, “It’s the body of Christ. Now stop asking so many stupid questions, and open your mouth!”

Not too thought out, as one might expect, but very everyman's William James.  To me James nails it yet again.

 

 

 

Please resume our regularly- scheduled argument about confidentiality and the Wonderful World of Disciplinary Councils 

[MiserereNobis]

Please resume our regularly- scheduled argument about confidentiality and the Wonderful World of Disciplinary Councils 

 

[krampus]

most very serious confessions, even child abuse do not get reported. the perp is told to report it. It is extremely rare that a perp will confess something like child abuse, unless he is first confronted about it. almost all child abusing priesthood holders just fly under the radar.

[LoudmouthMormon]

A note on "extremely rare":  That means it happens.  With the billions of people on earth, then extremely rare still means hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of people in this situation.

 

To put a human face on it, if you follow the careers of travelling speakers who talk on such issues, they never seem to have a problem filling a conference center in any city with folks who have been victimized by this stuff.  In every such room full of people, there will usually be one or two stories where a perp voluntarily confessed, or turned himself in, or admitted it in a suicide note, or some such thing.  I think that is what "extremely rare" looks like.  But yeah, LDS theology tells us the holy spirit confronts us with our actions, even if no mortal does.

 

To put an even more human face on it, I'm related by marriage to a family with multigenerational incest issues.  Back in the '90's, one of the sons, apparently of his own free will and without getting caught or confronted, came clean to his parents and his bishop.  None of the other perps in that family did, although another did come clean eventually, about halfway through his trial.  

 

Child sex abuse is fueled by secrecy like oxygen fuels a fire.  Besides the perps and victims, nobody really understood this until the last few decades or so of human history.  Society never really even grappled with the existence of such things until the last few decades or so.  I hazard a guess that no Catholics had such things in the forefront of their minds a thousand years ago when folks were putting together their cannon law regarding the confessional seal.  

Edited March 21, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[EllenMaksoud]

Lots depends on the state in which you live. Generally speaking the confessional is sacrosanct, except in the case of serious criminal acts.

Even when the police know of serious criminal acts against children, sometimes they do nothing.

[Alan]

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

 

You have quoted the law in the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom is a different country.

[rpn]

LDS church members are likely to be excommunicated or disfellowhipped if found guilty of child abuse --- LDS do not offer sacrament to prisoners, even if they remain members.  

 

And I do not think that repentance requires that a member turn himself into the police and violate his constitutional right to remain silent (from a constitution that LDS think is divinely inspired).   I do think it requires that the repentant agree to a plea to what they actually did and the prosecutor can prove to avoid further injury that a trial would create for the victim and families.

 

Sometimes these laws that require disclosure are  unhelpful in the goal of assuring safety for innocents.   Let's say there is a perp who seeks counseling and help from a therapist who is willing to treat them (it is a specialized practice and not many engage in it).  Let's say that the perp has taken actions to protect the vicitim --- moving out of the home, not being around young people, not having a computer or easy access to porn, working on addictions that loosen inhibitiions, working long hours so occupied, or whatever.   Let's say the therapist sees that he is really  working on the issues, but has to report him when he tells her why he is there for therapy.   What this does is make it impossible for someone who recognizes they need help to get the help so they will not do what has been done or is tormenting them with temptation.    I'd advocate for clergy and therapists to not have to turn in people who are still working with them unless there is evidence of immediate risk to innocents (because they are'n't doing protective things, or are skipping accountability or appts. or in crises that increase the risk, etc.)

[LoudmouthMormon]

Even when the police know of serious criminal acts against children, sometimes they do nothing.

Do you mean that sometimes when the police hear accusations, sometimes they do nothing?  Because that's true - they only enforce laws, and allegations of broken laws aren't enough to arrest someone.

[EllenMaksoud]

Do you mean that sometimes when the police hear accusations, sometimes they do nothing?  Because that's true - they only enforce laws, and allegations of broken laws aren't enough to arrest someone.

You shoulda just stayed out of this. And, no I am not going to tell you specifics. You have no idea what so ever !!!

 

I reported over 10 years of physical abuse and molestation and the Police blamed me !!!  My only recourse was that when I returned from years of absence, and planned to have attorney to press charges, the Sheriff apologized to me, and said that the place they confined me no longer existed. This will have to be enough.

 

Sorry. I blew up and should not have.

 

The man is dead, and I have forgiven him. The molesters: I wonder what happened to them? What were their lives like? They will be my age, and I hope that at some point they repented. I can do nothng more.

Edited March 21, 2014 by EllenMaksoud

[Alan]

LDS church members are likely to be excommunicated or disfellowhipped if found guilty of child abuse --- LDS do not offer sacrament to prisoners, even if they remain members.  

 

 

Excommunication is mandatory for child abuse.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hi Ellen,

 

No worries.  Actually, I do know a little about such things.  Never experienced anything like that personally, but I have helped a loved one report years of abuse, which resulted in absolutely no action whatsoever, except maybe someone stuck the fax in a file or trash can or something.  

 

Very, very, very common story.  Statute of limitations, lack of evidence, lack of prosecutorial weight, insufficient evidence of a future threat or future harm = the police don't bother.  I can't empathize with you, because I've never been there, but I can sympathize. 

 

Earthly justice, for lack of a better phrase, often sucks.  

 

My comments in this thread aren't really speaking to getting a victim justice.  Reporting so rarely results in conviction.  But reporting can, and often does, result in reducing the chances of future harm.  

Edited March 21, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[katherine the great]

Excommunication is mandatory for child abuse.

I assume you mean child sexual abuse?

[Yirgacheffe]

I assume you mean child sexual abuse?

Why not just plain child abuse?

[katherine the great]

Why not just plain child abuse?

Well, define "abuse."  Child sexual abuse, of any degree should be considered criminal.  Other types of "abuse" are sometimes subjective.  Spanking?  Spanking with a wooden spoon?  Spanking with a belt?  Spanking every day?  A hard spanking once or twice?  Emotional abuse?  Verbal abuse?  

[Yirgacheffe]

Well, define "abuse."  Child sexual abuse, of any degree should be considered criminal.  Other types of "abuse" are sometimes subjective.  Spanking?  Spanking with a wooden spoon?  Spanking with a belt?  Spanking every day?  A hard spanking once or twice?  Emotional abuse?  Verbal abuse?  

Conviction of physical or emotional abuse of a child, isn't everyone suppose to obey the law, if you are convicted you broke it.  Me I call hitting a child with an object abuse.

[katherine the great]

Conviction of physical or emotional abuse of a child, isn't everyone suppose to obey the law, if you are convicted you broke it.  Me I call hitting a child with an object abuse.

Felony child abuse?  Misdemeanor?  Getting excommunicated for spanking a child seems a bit harsh to me.  Just to be clear, I love children and I was not a spanker but there are a lot of gray areas in child rearing.  Ideally we would never criticize, belittle or strike a child, but my mom spanked me--hard sometimes.  I can recall a time she got so angry she pulled my hair and gave me a bloody nose (I was a difficult thirteen year old.)  But she was a good mother.  A well meaning busybody probably could have intervened and had my mom arrested in certain jurisdictions, but she certainly did not deserve to go to jail or be excommunicated.

[Yirgacheffe]

Felony child abuse?  Misdemeanor?  Getting excommunicated for spanking a child seems a bit harsh to me.  Just to be clear, I love children and I was not a spanker but there are a lot of gray areas in child rearing.  Ideally we would never criticize, belittle or strike a child, but my mom spanked me--hard sometimes.  I can recall a time she got so angry she pulled my hair and gave me a bloody nose (I was a difficult thirteen year old.)  But she was a good mother.  A well meaning busybody probably could have intervened and had my mom arrested in certain jurisdictions, but she certainly did not deserve to go to jail or be excommunicated.

Are people excommunicated for violent felonies or misdemeanors?

[katherine the great]

Are people excommunicated for violent felonies or misdemeanors?

Well I don't know.  Alan posted that excommunication is mandatory for child abuse.  I am trying to clarify.

[rpn]

1) There are no mandatory excommunications.   There are offenses for which there MUST be a church disciplinary councils to determine how to best help the person.   During those councils,  participants are supposed to consider the offense and the evidence and the repentance to date and the experiences of the person leading up to the offense, and make a decision that is then taken to the Lord for confirmation.  

 

2) Disciplinary councils aren't about punishment, at least that is not the intention for them.   It is a way to start/keep someone on the path to full repentance.   And that path can be very different for different individuals.

 

3)  And  yes, I have heard people describe disciplinary counsels that seems more like angry punishment of evil wrongdoer, than loving invitation to improve.   And there are plenty of disciplinary councils from which the person who has been called to one, departs not feeling the love that the handbook suggests ought to be there.  But when I've heard the HC's or counselors talk about them (not the details, just how it affected them and what the procedure was), there have only been a couple times when I've heard the hellfire and damnation, and frankly that was more a personality or gospel approach to life IMO than something directly related to the specific event.  (I have heard a few times that the leader imposed his views on the rest of the council, rather than work to a consensus or accept a differing result than the leader thought appropriate.)

 

4)   And yes, members can be excommunicated for crimes.    I knew of a young man once whose life was described by a caseworker as the worst abuse she'd ever seen in foster care ---over 7 years.  He had a very difficult time once he was adopted at ten accepting that God's love and the atonement could apply to him and he did not have to accept ownership for the abuse he suffered.   His parents were the ones who had him arrested the first time, thinking tough love would help.  Stupid decision, they eventually started warning other parents about.  Because the young man thereafter could never get off probation by living clean for the whole time.  So at age 19 he was off to prison  after he entered someone's home totally drunk, thinking it was his own and was convicted of burglary (which requires proof of intent to commit a crime which of course he couldn't have had because he was blotto, but that is another story.)    His parents wanted him to have HTers there so they got his records sent to the new ward where the prison was.  Within a week, the young man was served with an disciplinary council notice.   It seems that the ward/maybe the stake had decided that they either didn't want to serve the inmates in the prison in their town with home teachers or ministering, or they didn't believe in redemption or something.   They excommunicated any member whose records arrived there.   Thankfully the hometown bishop and SP were able to retrieve the records before the council was there. 

Edited March 22, 2014 by rpn

[mfbukowski]

Are people excommunicated for violent felonies or misdemeanors?

Subject to the nature of the crime they could be.  These steps are taken for two reasons- 1- to protect the church if necessary and 2- to help the person repent.

 

Excommunication happens for major non-violent crimes more often- stealing large amounts of money, etc.  It is part of the repentance process and enables the person excommunicated to be re-baptized after a period, and indeed the person is encouraged to work toward that goal by getting their lives in order, attending church etc.

 

In many cases the general membership would not even know that someone has been excommunicated. 

[Yirgacheffe]

Subject to the nature of the crime they could be.  These steps are taken for two reasons- 1- to protect the church if necessary and 2- to help the person repent.

 

Excommunication happens for major non-violent crimes more often- stealing large amounts of money, etc.  It is part of the repentance process and enables the person excommunicated to be re-baptized after a period, and indeed the person is encouraged to work toward that goal by getting their lives in order, attending church etc.

 

In many cases the general membership would not even know that someone has been excommunicated. 

Are you saying people are excommunicated more often for crimes against property than crimes against people?

[katherine the great]

Are you saying people are excommunicated more often for crimes against property than crimes against people?

Well, statistically there are many times more property crimes than violent crimes in the United States, so the odds...

[mfbukowski]

Are you saying people are excommunicated more often for crimes against property than crimes against people?

Who knows the stats for that? Not me. And is adultery a "crime against people"? Probably it is. That is probably the largest reason for excommunication so by that logic "crimes against people" wins the day.

But in my years in church I have only seen one excommunication for child abuse. Thank God it doesn't happen much, at least not that I have seen.

[Alan]

1) There are no mandatory excommunications.  

 

 

Yes there are.

Child sexual abuse is mandatory excommunication.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Alan