Catholic Confession and LDS Repentance Process

[Stargazer]

placeholder

[3DOP]

On 6/17/2025 at 12:20 PM, halconero said:

I've discussed this elsewhere, but part of this stems, in my opinion, from our lack of a universal theory of atonement. I'm not suggesting we lack doctrines of the atonement, but we don't always organize them in relation to each other and ourselves in an X → Y → Z fashion. Put more simply, what problem(s) is the atonement trying to solve? When did it solve them? What fundamentally changed about ourselves individually and the world around us the day Christ condescended (our Catholic and Orthodox friends might prefer the term "incarnated"), on that Friday afternoon he was crucified, or that Easter Sunday when he rose?

My understanding is that Catholic theology on the atonement is primarily grounded in a framework that first developed under Anselm of Canterbury and Bernard of Clairvaux, and later Doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas, and is commonly referred to as Satisfaction Theory. My external understanding (looking outside-in) is that sin dishonours are relationship to God. God himself in Christ, suffers for us and more-than restores this honour to God. It is not so much that Christ was punished in our stead, but that Christ acted with perfect obedience and honour towards the Father, including in his suffering. Given Anselm and Bernard's medieval worldview, my own personal comparison is that of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, and Sir Galahad. Where Lancelot dishonoured his relationship to Arthur, Sir Galahad acted above and beyond with perfect love and duty. His obedience was such that it not only restored a proper relation to God, but provided an abundant surplus that transform us from not only being innocent, but saintly, should we yoke ourselves with Christ.*

Considering this, I personally think it lends itself quite well to the practice of confession. The priest, as proxy, affirms the forgiveness of sin, or the restoration of honour between God and the penitent, because we are able to conceive of how Christ's perfect love and obedience completes the quest necessary to restore this relationship. That isn't a criticism on my part, or an accusation of oversimplification. I likewise don't think a satisfaction model of the atonement is incongruous with other conceptualizations. It's just a subjective observation on my part.

By contrast, I think there is a sort of subconscious question on the part of Latter-day Saints with regards to what we want or hope the atonement is doing for us. Is it releasing us from the long-term consequences of sin? Are we being healed from the consequences of our own actions or that of others? What exactly is sin doing to us and what does forgiveness look like? I actually don't think there is anything prohibiting bishops—morally or procedurally—from affirming that someone is forgiven, but there may be some hesitancy in doing so in order to not elevate ourselves to the level of God or assume a particular individual outcome for an individual given the varying nature of sin.

The ironic part, if my idea is true, is that we routinely act vicariously for God in applying the atonement to others, both living and dead, through the administration of ordinances. I remember watching a training video when I was a worker in the temple that described ordinances as "portals of grace," and couldn't help but reflect on my own gratefulness for being able to serve as the conduit to others seeking to access this grace. It's not that I was a gatekeeper, but rather, playing the role of opening doors to people who were seeking to enter anyways. In that sense, there are times where it may be entirely appropriate for a bishop working with someone to affirm their engagement with Christ, explain how they've worked with various mechanisms of grace in their lives, and confirm, given their journey, that they are indeed forgiven.

*Please feel welcome to correct me, @3DOP and @MiserereNobis. I'm limited but adverse to understanding Catholic teaching on the atonement as I understand it, so the last thing I want to do is mischaracterize teachings on this matter.

Hi halconero,

I think both of our communions can be suspected of holding to more or less official positions on the Atonement that have not filtered down to all of our faithful. Perhaps this is because varying schools of thought have never been identified by our churches as "official".

I hold to a position that I doubt would work for LDS. A brief explanation is that so far as shedding blood in atonement for sins, our Lord's circumcision was adequate for that. However, it was the will of the Father whose will was "the meat", of His Son that His disciples knew not. Through the subordination of the Son, we see a transcendent God loved His creature, Man, so much as to empty Himself of His transcendent divinity and become one of us!

A passage in Vatican II claims that through His incarnation (taking human flesh), Christ in a "certain sense" united himself with every man. Before, we were seen as being the offspring of Adam, who having fallen from grace, could not transmit such a heightened nature to his progeny. So, before Christ, all men were in a full sense, united to Adam. The good news proclaimed by the Angels at Christ's birth is that a deliverer, a Saviour has arrived that enables each human person from Adam until the last child born, to escape the predicament caused by Adam's fall.

Through faith and baptism we are taught that we can actually be in a non-physical sense re-born. Out of Adam and into Jesus! What a happy exchange. Every person must be seen as having the potential to be brothers and heirs with the Man Christ Jesus.

Jesus, the Son of God is also the Son of Man, and when we are incorporated into His visible Body on earth, living members of Christ our ascended Head, seated in the Heavens at the right hand of the Father, we are taught that we are with Him, in the heavenly places, adoring the Father as only we can with and in the Son. Beautiful to us. The transcendent knot untied. The finite in created intimacy with the Infinite.

Back to the Atonement. I hold to a theory permissible to Catholics that God's will that the Son should suffer His passion and death has not so much to do with satisfying justice, much less God's wrath. Rather it is a demonstration of what this supposedly unapproachable, dispassionate God will do to Himself, to warm and melt the hearts of stone which had existed in His creature man, ever since Adam hid from Him in the Garden. After all, Jesus Himself said, when I am lifted up, (on the Cross), I will draw all men to me. That paraphrase of Scripture is the leading idea in my mind for the Cross. 

I am not claiming this is defined dogma. I think both of our churches are still working it out.

Halconero, I think your good faith attempt to propose what many Catholics still believe is very faithfully representative of permissible Catholic teaching. But the Church is always moving forward, and while never denying what has been taught everywhere and always, the faithful Catholic is permitted to speculate on implicit mysteries of revelation that have not yet been discovered. Thankfully, none of us in either churches believe that an explicit and perfect understanding of the mysteries of the Atonement are necessary for union with Christ. I hope we agree that faith and baptism are adequate for that.

Best,

Rory

Edited June 23, 2025 by 3DOP

[Teancum]

On 5/13/2025 at 1:54 PM, MiserereNobis said:

From a purely psychological point of view, it is nice (as you say) to have closure. You go in to the confessional with guilt, and emerge (rebirth imagery) clean as snow.

The human psyche craves ritual.

I did have a question about this from the LDS bot. What's the difference between confessing and talking to? Doesn't the bishop assign penance (like not receiving the sacrament)?

An LDS Bishop can add what you might term some sort of penance. Not partaking of the LDS Sacrament can be on. Restricting use of priesthood such as doing a baptism or other LDS ordinance  is another. Withholding a temple recommend is another. These are are informal forms of discipline. 

[Robert F. Smith]

DOJ sues Washington State over law requiring priests to break confessional seal

 

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

DOJ sues Washington State over law requiring priests to break confessional seal

 

There seems to be a mistaken assumption on the part of legislators that the priest knows the identity of the person requesting God's forgiveness.

Even if the law was enacted would it require the priest to come bolting out of the confessional to try to get a glimpse of the guilty party? Should he ask the next person who comes in, concerned only with their own sins and negligence to identify the person who preceded them. Most of us aren't looking around to pay attention to a thing like that.

Of course I agree with the bishops who follow the Church's perennial teaching, but these legislators don't seem to have a clue about confession. It is ANONYMOUS. There are movies and TV programs that have shown the curtain or screen that separates priest and penitent! What do these legislators expect? How is the priest supposed to discover the identity of anyone? Can we convict any civil offender because the accuser, who never saw the person, overhears someone telling someone else about a murder, robbery, or child abuse that they say the committed? Same problem as with the priest.

The priest is merely an "ear witness". How could he be a credible witness to accuse someone of a civil crime? Would it because he thinks he recognized a voice? 

If this legislation were not already a violation of religious liberty, it would be utterly impractical to expect a single result from it in apprehending a child abuser if and when it is enacted into law.

Edited June 28, 2025 by 3DOP

[CV75]

On 5/13/2025 at 12:48 PM, Devobah said:

Hi all!

I'm mainly doing this as a way to calm down. A coworker and I got in a heated discussion about Latter-Day Saint practices when it comes to this process. "Cult" was thrown around a lot and I just tried to be respectful but it didn't get rid of the pit in my heart.

A few days ago a friend of mine were discussing her dating life. She was talking about finding someone who is Catholic or Christian for dating, even though she isn't a practicing Catholic currently. She grew up in a mixed home (dad is Catholic and mom was (I think) non-denominational), and didn't grow up actively attending church.

I actually had to take her through some Catholic church history (I won't go through specifics here but for my Catholic or Orthodox posters I believe I did you justice) and some of the differences between Catholics and Orthodox. Somehow we got on the subject of confession and she wanted to talk to me about the differences between the two. I believe there are some gaps in my knowledge regarding this process, but I got through the basics fairly I believe.

I think one of the things that I appreciate about the Catholic Confession (or Sacrament of Penance) is the simple thing of having someone saying outright that you are forgiven of the sins that you confessed to. In the LDS repentance process, at least in my case, there isn't really a point where someone really says this to you. You work through these things on your timing and have to come to terms with these sins and the process on your own. I think I have a flawed mindset of this because I'm very goal oriented. I like my steps. I go from step one to step ten and the goal is completed. I'm a bit more logical in that way. 

This is what LDS Bot had to say when I asked it to compare the two:

Great question! Let's dive into some differences between Catholic confession and the LDS repentance process.

Catholic Confession

Sacrament of Penance: In Catholicism, confession is a sacrament called the Sacrament of Penance. It's one of the seven sacraments and a way to receive God's grace.

Role of a Priest: Confession involves speaking to a priest who acts as an intermediary. The priest provides absolution, which is the forgiveness of sins in God's name.

Frequency: Catholics are encouraged to confess their sins regularly, often before receiving the Eucharist.

Ritual Elements: Confession typically includes an examination of conscience, contrition, confessing sins, receiving penance, and absolution.

LDS Repentance Process

Personal Process: In the Latter-day Saint faith, repentance is a personal process between the individual and God. It does not involve confession to a priest but may involve talking to a bishop for serious transgressions.

Steps of Repentance: The process includes recognizing the sin, feeling godly sorrow, confessing to God and, when necessary, to the offended party, making restitution, and forsaking the sin.

Ongoing Process: Repentance is considered a lifelong, continuous process. Members are encouraged to examine their lives regularly and make necessary changes.

No Formal Sacrament: Unlike Catholics, Latter-day Saints do not have a formal sacrament of confession. Instead, repentance is integrated into their daily lives and church activities.

Both processes are designed to help individuals come closer to God by seeking forgiveness and striving to live a more righteous life. They reflect the theological and ritual differences in how each faith understands the process of forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

What are some misconceptions that you have had about the repentance process? For my Catholic posters, what are some things about the Sacrament of Penance that you find most interesting or that I have misrepresented in any way?

 

 

Not sure about misconceptions, but my read of the Handbook is that it speaks to priesthood leaders holding "the keys to represent the Lord in helping Church members repent," but not the keys of forgiveness. The first key brings spiritual authority and inspiration in teaching the member correct principles of repentance, administrative authority to hearing the person's need for repentance and determining the need for confession for Church membership purposes, and spiritual authority to point people to the Father for His forgiveness. The second would be to represent the Lord in extending forgiveness to the members, keys that we do not have or use.

I believe this is consistent with 3 Nephi 12 and 13, where despite all the authority Jesus gave the twelve disciples (12:1-2), the only thing mentioned of forgiveness in His entire visit to the Nephites is found in 13: 9-15, pointing to the Father.

I do not take the remission of sins to be the same as the forgiveness of sins, since a blotting out of the offense (remission) does not advance a person to a higher spiritual level: they remain at the same level as just prior to committing the sin; only the release from the penalty or consequence of sins (forgiveness) advances a person toward the fullness of the stature of Christ. A person at a certain spiritual level, even without committing an otherwise blotted-out sin, is still bound (i.e., not released) by the "penalty" or "consequence" of the spiritual level of their natural or fallen person.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

What do these legislators expect? How is the priest supposed to discover the identity of anyone?

Perhaps they are assuming that the person confessing is almost always a committed member of the congregation (why else would they confess?) and of course the priest recognizes the voice (as often happens in shows in my experience where they end up joking with each other).  It really doesn’t make sense otherwise, given the setup.

I, however, can easily see making the effort to confess to a priest who does not know one in order to avoid future awkwardness even if the priest is committed to acting as if they have no knowledge of the confession.

Now you have mentioned, I would love to know the reasoning of the law based on the anonymity of the confession.

Edited June 28, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

.........................................

If this legislation were not already a violation of religious liberty, it would be utterly impractical to expect a single result from it in apprehending a child abuser if and when it is enacted into law.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

..............................................

Now you have mentioned, I would love to know the reasoning of the law based on the anonymity of the confession.

This Washington State law takes effect July 27th, and it applies to the secrecy/sanctity of any confession given to any clergyman.  The DOJ rightly considers it an assault on religious rights.  And what is next:  Attorney-Client privilege, Husband-Wife privilege, Doctor-Patient privilege?  Anonymity is not an issue.

The only confession not subject to secrecy is a continuing criminal enterprise.  That means that a confession that one is going to kill or do something illegal, there is no secrecy.

[Tony uk]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps they are assuming that the person confessing is almost always a committed member of the congregation (why else would they confess?) and of course the priest recognizes the voice (as often happens in shows in my experience where they end up joking with each other).  It really doesn’t make sense otherwise, given the setup.

I, however, can easily see making the effort to confess to a priest who does not know one in order to avoid future awkwardness even if the priest is committed to acting as if they have no knowledge of the confession.

Now you have mentioned, I would love to know the reasoning of the law based on the anonymity of the confession.

From my own time within the RC Church. I think the basic principal of the seal of confession, is based upon the person confessing their own sins to God. The priest being the mediator, acts has an Earthly presence of God's forgiveness. With Jesus saying to Simon Peter, and in turn to the 13 Disciples (Apostles) , What you Bind on Earth Will be Bound in Heaven. What you Loose in Heaven, Will be Loosed in Heaven. In my own experience the seal of Confession stems from here. However, someone with a greater understanding of the RC Church, will be able to give a better, and fuller account than me.

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps they are assuming that the person confessing is almost always a committed member of the congregation (why else would they confess?) and of course the priest recognizes the voice (as often happens in shows in my experience where they end up joking with each other).  It really doesn’t make sense otherwise, given the setup.

I, however, can easily see making the effort to confess to a priest who does not know one in order to avoid future awkwardness even if the priest is committed to acting as if they have no knowledge of the confession.

Now you have mentioned, I would love to know the reasoning of the law based on the anonymity of the confession.

I should clarify that anonymity is not necessary for a valid confession. The popes usually have a confessor to whom he regularly confesses. In extremis, in danger of death, anonymity is impossible. But my experience is that ordinarily, those who go to confession at scheduled times in parish settings are, or if they choose, can be anonymous. I have seen chairs placed to where the penitent can face the confessor. It seems unlikely that a child abuser would choose this option. I think most other confessions are anonymous. When I was in Rome, there were confessionals all over at St. Peter's Basilica where you could find a priest who spoke your language. As I recall, there was no option for being "seen" by the priest.

I think the reasoning for this from the Church's perspective is from an understanding of human psychology as well as sacramental theology as regards Confession. I suppose there are some people who would say that they enjoy going to confession. I do not know that I would believe them. I enjoy coming OUT of confession. The mood and the looks on the people in line, including myself, usually reflect a common and natural repugnance to naming our own guilt and failings. This should of course be overcome by the knowledge that in reality our confessions are not to the priest, who is Christ's intermediary, in persona Christi, but to the all-merciful and loving Son of God, our High Priest who intercedes on our behalf, showing the Sacred wounds which He endured on our behalf to the Father who forgives us with His Son. But the Church knows our human frailties and wants to make it as easy as possible to make a good confession and does not require that we reveal ourselves to the priest who we may or may not know behind the screen. I am glad for this concession to my own human frailty. My daughter recently told my wife and I an amusing anecdote about a few of her friends when they were teenagers, who would try to feign accents from other regions, in order that the priest who they knew well, might not recognize who they were! 

On a more serious note, another reason why this law could itself be easily abused is that it could easily lead to someone (one willing to commit a sacrilege) with a terrible grudge against another, to pretend to be that party to whom the grudge is borne, and falsely confess to child abuse or other horrible crimes that must be reported to civil authority.   

Edited June 29, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

This Washington State law takes effect July 27th, and it applies to the secrecy/sanctity of any confession given to any clergyman.  The DOJ rightly considers it an assault on religious rights.  And what is next:  Attorney-Client privilege, Husband-Wife privilege, Doctor-Patient privilege?  Anonymity is not an issue.

The only confession not subject to secrecy is a continuing criminal enterprise.  That means that a confession that one is going to kill or do something illegal, there is no secrecy.

Hi Robert. Good to see you. I know I take long absences sometimes. I had missed you a while back and I think asked about you in the Social Hall.

The priest in such a circumstance could certainly not offer absolution. There was movie I saw long ago called I Confess, with Montgomery Clift as a priest and Lana Turner I think. Anyway, as I recall, the film presented a very difficult dilemma for the priest as to how he would deal with a confession in a circumstance I cannot remember.

If a priest takes a vow before God to never violate the secrecy of the confessional, under any circumstance under pain of sin, then his decision is made. One never does wrong in order to do what seems to be right. I remember seeing an episode of the television series 24, starring Kiefer Sutherland, over a decade ago I suppose already. Anyway, the dilemma was that some kind of global catastrophe could be avoided by the murder of a particular innocent man. It was one of the most terrible (not poorly done, very poignantly and properly done, truly horror) scenes I have ever seen on television, of this innocent man seen from a distance, I think through the scope of a long range rifle, being shot dead to save mankind...supposedly. I decided that I do not live in a world where God would ever ask me to save humanity, my family, my church, or anything else by deliberately committing the least of sins. My God is omni-benevolent. My Father in heaven would NEVER ask me to do such a thing. He would expect me to trust that He does not need me to sin to accomplish His good designs. 

I would say the same thing about our theoretical priest who learns of a future crime being contemplated while hearing a confession. I do not know for sure if the priest vows to reveal NOTHING of what he has learned in the confessional. I suspect that everything heard is never to be repeated. In that event, a loving child (our priest) who is not privy to His Father's plans entrusts the situation to his loving Father, knowing that his good Father would never ask him to "help Him to do good" by disobeying Christ's Church, always a sin.

As Tony UK noted above, it goes with whatsoever you (the apostles and their successors) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. If the Church should change her discipline for the confessional, as one of the legislators noted the Church can, it would be a completely different scenario. But a civil legislator's wishes for the Church are not ratified by God. The licitly promulgated law of the Church, even if it can change, IS the law of heaven, we are taught. And the God that Catholics should trust and believe in would never, under any circumstance whatever, ask one of her children to violate that law.

Thanks for your always keen observations Robert. I hope I have contributed to unravelling a somewhat confusing situation, even sometime to those on the inside. It is understandably confusing to those on the outside, and we Catholics need to be patient with good civil servants, and others who are not advocating interference in someone else's religion. They have in mind the protection of the weakest among us, and we Catholics must honor them for that very good intention, and be of assistance as our faith allows us to. Catholics are instructed to report suspected child abuse in their parishes. We are on the same side against this horrific crime.

Rory

  

Edited June 29, 2025 by 3DOP

[Benjamin McGuire]

At the same time, we have this problem - the Catholic Church has a history that cannot be ignored - they have enabled predators to continue their evil actions. Their claim that confession is privileged and sacrosanct has regularly been invoked in a way that, at least in appearance, seeks to absolve themselves from any guild or responsibility for these actions. 

It is clear that there are instances where religious belief should not trump the public interests. We do not allow religions to kill. We don't allow Jews, for example, to stone the perpetrators of certain sins - even though such an act is spelled out in the Old Testament. I think that given the history of religious organizations in trying to provide their own judgement or leniency in these cases - as opposed to society as a whole - have proven to be untrustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted. And I think that the Catholic hierarchy ought to be aware of the fact that they are more than just a little bit responsible for these laws being passed.

I think, Rory, that if we say that the Catholic Church is on the same side, then there will always be caveats to this. The Church, in trying to treat this purely as a moral issue - instead of a most reprehensible criminal issue, is not really on the same side.

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At the same time, we have this problem - the Catholic Church has a history that cannot be ignored - they have enabled predators to continue their evil actions. Their claim that confession is privileged and sacrosanct has regularly been invoked in a way that, at least in appearance, seeks to absolve themselves from any guild or responsibility for these actions. 

It is clear that there are instances where religious belief should not trump the public interests. We do not allow religions to kill. We don't allow Jews, for example, to stone the perpetrators of certain sins - even though such an act is spelled out in the Old Testament. I think that given the history of religious organizations in trying to provide their own judgement or leniency in these cases - as opposed to society as a whole - have proven to be untrustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted. And I think that the Catholic hierarchy ought to be aware of the fact that they are more than just a little bit responsible for these laws being passed.

I think, Rory, that if we say that the Catholic Church is on the same side, then there will always be caveats to this. The Church, in trying to treat this purely as a moral issue - instead of a most reprehensible criminal issue, is not really on the same side.

Hello Ben...Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you on your remarks in the suffering thread. I have had some health and other issues. I am doing much better now though.

------------------------------------- 

In two previous posts I tried to outline why this law would be impossible to enforce, unlikely to apprehend any child abuser, and permit the abuse of the Sacrament by a vengeful party confessing to a crime in someone else's name.

Instead of addressing those problems with the legislation, you compare the Catholic position to Jews who you apparently suspect of wanting to stone people but thankfully are prohibited by law from doing so.

I appreciate that you are concerned about child abuse committed by Catholic priests. Do you think we parents and grandparents of Catholic children have been unaware and unconcerned about this problem of our generation? Maybe you should take our view of the matter a little more seriously.   

This law of the Church has now been in place for more than one thousand-five hundred years. In his epistle "Magna indign", of March 6, 459, Pope St. Leo the Great changed the former custom of the Church with regards to the secrecy of the Confessional:

"With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful, is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession...since the sins of all are not such that those who ask for penance do not dread to publish them, so objectionable a custom should be abolished...For that confession is sufficient, which is first offered to God, then also to a priest, who serves as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents. For then, indeed, more will be able to be incited to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not exposed to the ears of the people."

---The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 13th edition, by Henry Denziger, trans. by Roy J. Deferarri, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO (1954)

I tend to think that many non-Catholics believe that penitents get to go to the confessional, tell their sins, and walk out with the intention of doing the same thing again, and get to heaven just as long as they can quickly get to confession without dying before their next perverse and unholy acts against God's law and civil law. I have asked myself if these criminals even avail themselves of the confessional? Can they have the faith? Maybe you all think that two predator priests can agree to give each other absolution for committing the same sins? Is that it? It is a ridiculous scenario, but do you think that they would agree to report other because of a civil violation? We are very clearly instructed that without a firm intention of amendment, there is NO FORGIVENESS for sins.

Anyway. the secrecy of the confessional is not a device designed to protect Catholic criminals from prosecution. It is designed to encourage sinners to truly repent and seek forgiveness. I do not think that knowledgeable Catholics would ever endorse overthrowing the venerable and merciful custom which comes from St. Leo the Great, 15 centuries ago, for a civil law that would be unenforceable, and doubtfully apprehend a single predator today, after all of these centuries where we didn't think our sins could be made public again. Likewise, I do not think that knowledgeable non-Catholics would wish for such a useless and possibly harmful civil law. I still honor and commend the good intentions of everyone here, Ben, including you, none of whom would defend child abuse.  

[Calm]

Ben, what difference do you see happening if Catholic priests were to start reporting confessions of child abuse given the practical concerns 3DOP mentions?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

This law of the Church has now been in place for more than one thousand-five hundred years. In his epistle "Magna indign", of March 6, 459, Pope St. Leo the Great changed the former custom of the Church with regards to the secrecy of the Confessional:

This is an irrelevancy. And I really mean that. This may mean a lot to the Catholic community - but we are also a society that has certain expectations. Part of being a Church in our society means that there are both benefits and expectations that come with it. Had the Catholic Church been meeting some of these societal expectations in the past, there would be far less pressure to force change now. But we all know that this wasn't the case.

I personally think that the earlier version (it's only a year or so old now) was probably an acceptable compromise. It excluded certain types of confessions - but still made priests a mandatory reporter. And what that means is that priests would have been required to report things when they discovered them in any other context than that direct confession. 

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I appreciate that you are concerned about child abuse committed by Catholic priests. Do you think we parents and grandparents of Catholic children have been unaware and unconcerned about this problem of our generation? Maybe you should take our view of the matter a little more seriously.   

What makes you think I am not considering this seriously? The problem is that Churches cannot be completely separate from the societies in which they exist. You seem to be demanding that we recognize your (collective) right to practice your religion as you see fit. And I am suggesting that, in fact, society (the rest of us) have some obligations that we believe supersede that right - not just for Catholics, but for every religion. This is, I think, one of those situations. This isn't just a problem of "our generation" - it is a problem that has only seen the light of day in "our generation". And I think that at the very least, you should maybe consider that there could be some necessary compromise. The Catholic Church, like all churches, receives a lot of benefits from our society - on the basis that it is good for society. And all that the Catholic Church would have to do to prevent legislation like this from threatening its sacred sacraments would be to simply stop claiming to be an officially recognized church. Then there are no priests - and so there is no mandatory reporting. The cost is just the benefits that society provides to Catholicism as a Church. If it is worth that much, there is a way to avoid it.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I tend to think that many non-Catholics believe that penitents get to go to the confessional, tell their sins, and walk out with the intention of doing the same thing again, and get to heaven just as long as they can quickly get to confession without dying before their next perverse and unholy acts against God's law and civil law. I have asked myself if these criminals even avail themselves of the confessional? Can they have the faith? Maybe you all think that two predator priests can agree to give each other absolution for committing the same sins? Is that it? It is a ridiculous scenario, but do you think that they would agree to report other because of a civil violation? We are very clearly instructed that without a firm intention of amendment, there is NO FORGIVENESS for sins.

This isn't about forgiveness of sins. Even if I believed that the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) can forgive sins, this isn't about that. This is about justice. And justice is a pillar of our society. We have obligations to protect children in our society. And that obligation - in my opinion - exceeds the needs of the Church in this particular situation. So much is discussed about the perpetrator confessing - but in fact, all the data that we have suggests that perpetrators rarely confess. What happens if a victim discusses their abuse in the confessional? Can the priest who takes that confession do anything at all about it? No. So, we come back to this problem that the Catholic Church needs to come up with some sort of compromise - or society will continue to push back against them. Now, who knows, maybe the Catholic Church is getting better. Perhaps all of the litigation and the costs are teaching them that there is a price that they have to pay. And maybe once we get past "our generation" and move beyond this, faith in the Catholic Church will be restored. But, this sort of uncompromising push back isn't going to help. Further, it seems quite clear to us (as a society) that things like pedophilia are not simply sins - they are illnesses. No amount of repentance is necessarily going to get such an individual to change their behavior. The Church is unequipped to deal with this sort of thing.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Anyway. the secrecy of the confessional is not a device designed to protect Catholic criminals from prosecution. It is designed to encourage sinners to truly repent and seek forgiveness. I do not think that knowledgeable Catholics would ever endorse overthrowing the venerable and merciful custom which comes from St. Leo the Great, 15 centuries ago, for a civil law that would be unenforceable, and doubtfully apprehend a single predator today, after all of these centuries where we didn't think our sins could be made public again. Likewise, I do not think that knowledgeable non-Catholics would wish for such a useless and possibly harmful civil law. I still honor and commend the good intentions of everyone here, Ben, including you, none of whom would defend child abuse. 

I do not believe that it is useless. I do not believe that it is harmful (in the larger societal context). I think that there are useful compromises which can be made. But - I am going to continue to point out that this is, at least in part, a problem that the Catholic Church has created. It is hard not to recognize this when the Catholic Church's own report of abuse in France concluded that 330,000 children were abused over the last 70 years in that country alone. That is a staggering statistic. I certainly agree that opening the confessional to mandatory reporting would not solve this issue - or prevent this sort of thing - but I do not think that it would be harmful. But making clergy mandatory reporters without opening the confessional would almost certainly have helped alleviate some of this abuse - forcing the church to report to civil authorities when they receive reports of abuse, and having the Church comply, would do a great deal to restore trust - both from the membership of the Church and from the larger society in which it participates. I think that society as a whole as a right to be skeptical of the Church's complicitness in some of this. As long as the churches do not offer some sort of transparency - both to their congregations and to society, society as a whole has a real basis to push back. The arguments about the history of the practice are, in this context, completely meaningless to me. It is not an argument that is going to win over society as a whole. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Ben, what difference do you see happening if Catholic priests were to start reporting confessions of child abuse given the practical concerns 3DOP mentions?

First, the evidence that we have is that confessions of child abuse in any religious tradition are actually quite rare. So, I think that the issue of opening the confessional takes a back seat to the need for clergy to be mandatory reporters in other contexts. I don't think that opening the confessional (at least in terms of perpetrators) is going to change things. But, I think that there are several benefits that are likely when we just make them mandatory reporters in all other contexts. I think the previous Washington law, which made clergy mandatory reporters except when the conversation was privileged was good. I think that the current push to move beyond that is an attempt to punitively impact churches, who have been difficult partners at best in trying to manage the problem of child abuse. I will be the first to recognize that some of this reluctance is caused by the fear of expensive lawsuits.

I think that, when trained, clergy would be as good as most of our other professional mandatory reporters (i.e. teachers, social workers, etc). No one will beat physicians in terms of accuracy of reporting (due both to their special circumstances when encountering the victims of abuse and in their recognition of symptoms). But, I think that clergy generally hold a position of trust and would be approachable by victims - if victims knew that such discussions might lead to better conditions.

But, most importantly, the problems associated with Catholic priests is that the Church itself would be required to take steps when allegations were made - or face sanctions. In France, in the 2021 report that I mentioned in my last post, an estimated 3,000 Catholic priests were directly responsible for abusing an estimated 216,000 individuals over a seventy year span of time. If such laws had been in place, and the Church became aware of accusations, it seems more than a little likely that subsequent investigations and civil actions would have reduced the number of victims. Churches create environments by their very nature that can make abuse easier to commit.

I am not saying that Churches aren't changing. What I am saying is that Churches really have an obligation to society that is greater than the "we will handle it internally" sort of response that we have seen. If Catholicism doesn't want to have the confessional opened, then they need to come forward and promote policies and practices and engagements with local law enforcement that provides everything but that opening of the confessional - and if they really do this, then, I think, the absence of the confessional in that list wouldn't be so difficult for past victims and the rest of society to accept.

[3DOP]

REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE

If you suspect a child is being abused

or neglected, make a report to the 

Kansas Department for Children 

and Families Protection Report Center

by calling (800) 922-5330.

Call law enforcement if the person is in

immediate danger or injured.

If you or someone you know has

been abused by a cleric, employee,

or volunteer of any archdiocesan parish, school, or agency--regardless

of when the abuse occurred--call

the archdiocesan confidential report line at (913) 647-3051 or the Victim

Care Advocate at (913) 298-9244

*AFTER* calling local law enforcement.

This is printed in every weekly bulletin at my parish. All emphases are from the bulletin. 

Ben, you talk about the church's responsibility to society. What about the state's responsibility to protect the common good of society? If the Catholic church needs to change her {ancient, though irrelevant) laws about a Sacrament, maybe the state has an obligation to reevaluate whatever (recent, though irrelevant) amendment that makes it necessary to allow pornography shops up and down all the interstates and all over the internet. What do you think contributes more to sexual abuse, the Catholic Church's secrecy in the Confessional, or legalized pornography?   

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

47 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Ben, you talk about the church's responsibility to society. What about the state's responsibility to protect the common good of society? If the Catholic church needs to change her {ancient, though irrelevant) laws about a Sacrament, maybe the state has an obligation to reevaluate whatever (recent, though irrelevant) amendment that makes it necessary to allow pornography shops up and down all the interstates and all over the internet. What do you think contributes more to sexual abuse, the Catholic Church's secrecy in the Confessional, or legalized pornography?   

So, are you suggesting that it is pornography that is responsible for child abuse? Perhaps you can provide for us some evidence that with the legalization of pornography there was a rise in child abuse? Should I conclude that because thousands of Catholic priests personally committed child abuse that being a catholic priest somehow inclines one towards child abuse? Perhaps all of those priests who abused children were influenced by all that legal pornography they were reading?

I don't think that legal pornography contributes significantly to child abuse - and the state makes child pornography (as well as any abuse of children more generally) illegal. I don't think that secrecy by the Catholic Church contributes to child abuse. The problem isn't really that simple, is it. What has been an issue is that the Catholic Church has, from time to time, been aware of individuals who were committing child abuse, and the Church did not take significant steps to prevent that child abuse. Now, this might not be a problem for you - but it is that history that is contributing to the lack of empathy in the larger society over the concerns of the Catholic Church about secrecy. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Now, this might not be a problem for you

I think 3DOP has made it clear it was a problem for him and most Catholic parents when he said 

Quote

appreciate that you are concerned about child abuse committed by Catholic priests. Do you think we parents and grandparents of Catholic children have been unaware and unconcerned about this problem of our generation? Maybe you should take our view of the matter a little more seriously.   

I don’t think it helps to trivialize Catholic response to the point of suggesting it is not a problem for a devout or any other Catholic (in this case Rory) that the CC did not take significant steps in many cases to prevent abuse when leaders learned of it.  I would be hurt if you said something like that to me.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Calm

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, are you suggesting that it is pornography that is responsible for child abuse? Perhaps you can provide for us some evidence that with the legalization of pornography there was a rise in child abuse? Should I conclude that because thousands of Catholic priests personally committed child abuse that being a catholic priest somehow inclines one towards child abuse? Perhaps all of those priests who abused children were influenced by all that legal pornography they were reading?

I don't think that legal pornography contributes significantly to child abuse - and the state makes child pornography (as well as any abuse of children more generally) illegal. I don't think that secrecy by the Catholic Church contributes to child abuse. The problem isn't really that simple, is it. What has been an issue is that the Catholic Church has, from time to time, been aware of individuals who were committing child abuse, and the Church did not take significant steps to prevent that child abuse. Now, this might not be a problem for you - but it is that history that is contributing to the lack of empathy in the larger society over the concerns of the Catholic Church about secrecy. 

Ben. We have an amendment in the US Constitution which affirms the right to publish pornography. I assume you approve of that interpretation. But you appear to want legislation that goes even further, to say that a Catholic priest, who is under canonical law according to His faith, bound to silence, to be forced to speak. 

You are correct. I am not on the same side as you. You believe in freedom of speech, good for you. I believe in freedom to be silent under a single circumstance that grievously violates ancient Catholic custom. And I am according to you, irresponsible to my children and grandchildren because of my position?

You say nothing about the admonition in our bulletins to report potential abuse to law enforcement BEFORE contacting church authorities. You already admitted that there is little evidence that child abusers are confessing to church authorities. It only appears to me that your motive is not out of love for my Catholic grandchildren, but rather to undermine a Catholic Sacrament. 

No secrecy for one sin today? What is the logic against maintaining the custom of silence for a host of other sins and crimes tomorrow? It may be a civic duty to report crimes, but I do not believe it should be passed into law that a priest now lacks the right to have the same freedoms to be silent that other citizens have.

 

Edited July 1, 2025 by 3DOP

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Ben. We have an amendment in the US Constitution which affirms the right to publish pornography. I assume you approve of that interpretation. But you appear to want legislation that goes even further, to say that a Catholic priest, who is under canonical law according to His faith, bound to silence, to be forced to speak. 

No. You have this entirely wrong - and you should appreciate this from your Catholic background. The objective is not to force a priest to speak. That has never been the objective. The objective is to protect children. The cost of forcing clergy to speak is simply an outcome of the steps taken to get to that objective. Let's not be confused about this. This is not targeting Catholic priests specifically. The law does not target Catholics. It is not specific to Catholics. Catholics, naturally, focus on the way that it directly impacts them.

I have repeated several times now in this thread that I prefer the earlier compromise - the one that protects that confession but requires clergy to be mandatory reporters in all other contexts. I think that the benefits of opening the confession are generally not very significant. The benefits of making clergy mandatory reporters in all other contexts is likely to be enough to make it worth doing (from societies perspective). And I have suggested that this is especially true since Catholic leadership has historically been aware of complaints of abuse and (for whatever reason) been unwilling to take steps to have the perpetrators made accountable under secular law for their actions. I say that the benefits of opening the confession are small because (a) I believe that very few confessions of child abuse are made, and (b) because of this, opening the confession would both result in few actionable reports and it would result in few priests having to compromise Catholic law. Given the small scope of benefit, it simply doesn't have that much value to society in comparison to the potential costs to Catholic priests.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

You are correct. I am not on the same side as you. You believe in freedom of speech, good for you. I believe in freedom to be silent under a single circumstance that grievously violates ancient Catholic custom. And I am according to you, irresponsible to my children and grandchildren because of my position?

You keep misrepresenting my point of view. Get it right.

But, you also are unwilling to recognize the simple fact that the relationship that religion has with larger society is not as something separate. We can truly separate them. The religion card doesn't allow for a carte blanche right to ignore society and its laws and standards. I don't think that you disagree with this - but then we are going to argue over where to draw the line. Or, perhaps you really do believe that every religion (not just your own) has the right to do anything they want because of their religious context - and not just Catholicism?

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

You say nothing about the admonition in our bulletins to report potential abuse to law enforcement BEFORE contacting church authorities. You already admitted that there is little evidence that child abusers are confessing to church authorities. It only appears to me that your motive is not out of love for my Catholic grandchildren, but rather to undermine a Catholic Sacrament. 

I have two responses to this. The first is that this is about a history of abuse - much of which has been caused by leaders in the Catholic Church. Does the Church itself, when it becomes aware of abuse committed by its priests turn all of that evidence over to law enforcement immediately? You are ignoring the elephant in the room here. Second, what you seem to be saying is that it is the victim's job to advocate for themselves, and that the Church has no responsibility to advocate for the victim in these civil cases. And while this argument may be acceptable in some ways, it creates a problem in the overlap - when it is representatives of the Church that are the perpetrators of the abuse.

Rather than simply going off and attacking here - why don't you spell out for us in a detailed way what you think is the responsibility of the Catholic Church and its priests - when they uncover allegations of abuse outside of the protected context of the confession - and also when they receive allegations of abuse pointed at one of their own?

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

No secrecy for one sin today? What is the logic against maintaining the custom of silence for a host of other sins and crimes tomorrow? It may be a civic duty to report crimes, but I do not believe it should be passed into law that a priest now lacks the right to have the same freedoms to be silent that other citizens have.

Why not? I have been a mandatory reporter for about 25 years now (my entire professional career). I don't have this freedom. Why shouldn't I expect that clergy be held to this same standards? At what point does the needs of society trump the freedom to be silent? Or do you think that the freedom to be silent should trump any and every need that society may have?

A final issue though because you have brought this up several times in this last post. Mandatory Reporting is not considered a violation of Free Speech principles in the United States. Even though it compels speech, it is a compelling of fact - more similar to the filing of taxes than it is to something ideological, like a requirement to speak the pledge of allegiance. In a way, the efforts of the religious right to push boundaries by, for example, requiring physicians to provide women with literature about alternatives to abortion, have created this legal recognition that this sort of compelled speech is not a violation of free speech because it is a set of facts and not a requirement to speak an ideological message. A mandated disclosure doesn't become controversial, legally, just because a speaker objects to making it. Mandatory reporting has been determined by the courts to not be compelled speech - to not be a violation of free speech - and as such, the government has a right, should it see a need, to make everyone a mandated reporter. To do so, without providing the necessary training isn't helpful - but it isn't a free speech issue - and to not have to do this is not considered a right that citizens have (contrary to your point of view here) - anymore than we have a right to not file a tax return because it is compelled speech.

[3DOP]

Benjamin. From the foregoing, I think it is accurate to say that you hold that requiring priests to break the confessional seal will be of minimal effect to aiding in apprehending child abusers. Agreeing with that assessment of yours, further reasons for approving this legislation seem merely vindictive.

I read your latest post once. I admit I have lost any zeal I might have had to try to analyze your arguments and reason with you as a Catholic. You accuse me of misunderstanding you. "Get it right," you tell me. It is possible that I am ignorant and obtuse. I know I am not as "sharp" as I used to be. But perhaps there is someone else who holds to your premises (about the prospective ineffectiveness of the proposed legislation to curb child abuse).

Maybe one of you could explain why Catholics should support this legislation in agreement with Mr. McGuire even as he says above that there is little evidence to show that child abusers confess their sins in any religious community?  

It could help to keep in mind that even if it is not specifically aimed at the Catholic priest in the Confessional, the proposed legislation would require the Washingtonian priest to commit what he believes to be a sin that could not be forgiven. Confessinal absolution requires the firm resolution to not commit the sin again. The Washingtonian priest who would be absolved must resolve never to break the confessional seal again, if he hears another confession about child abuse again in the state of Washington. Can a thoughtful and compassionate non-Catholic just wave that off as irrelevant because they think the priest shouldn't have such a concern?

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2025 by 3DOP

[Benjamin McGuire]

25 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Maybe one of you could explain why Catholics should support this legislation in agreement with Mr. McGuire even as he says above that there is little evidence to show that child abusers confess their sins in any religious community? 

I haven't said that I support this legislation. Let's review:

1) I am in favor of the earlier legislation (that this replaces) that made clergy mandatory reporters in all cases except for situations of privilege (which means in the Catholic Church, the confession).

2) While confession of perpetrators rarely occurs, information about perpetrators regularly comes from victims, and from others who know of the abuse. This is generally how mandatory reporters get their information. The reason why making Catholic clergy mandatory reporters is good is because it addresses a longstanding historical problem in which Catholic leadership was aware of abuse by both its members and by its clergy, and did not take efforts to bring this abuse forward to civil authorities.

It isn't all about the confessional. And you still have yet to make any statement here that really recognizes the sheer scope of the abuse problem perpetrated by members of the Catholic clergy, and the failure of the Catholic Church to protect the children who were abused by these members of the clergy. Further, there seems to be no recognition at all that the issue of justice (and not repentance or forgiveness) is a civil and not a religious issue. The Church cannot impose civil consequences - but by actively working to prevent the public knowledge of crimes being committed, the Catholic Church engages in a practice that prevents civil society from getting the justice that they deserve. Further, you suggested this earlier:

Quote

A part of the reason I became Catholic thirty years ago, was that I read a pamphlet by a priest who claimed that he never knew of a sinful habit that could not be overcome by frequent confession.

But this flies in the face of much of what we know about conditions like pedophilia. This is an illness that cannot be fixed by confession. And the attitude that confession will eventually correct it simply enables and extends the abuse that goes on. There is the suggestion that something like pedophilia is a purely moral issue - and as such, it should be exclusively in the domain of the Church in terms of determining how to correct the problem. And yet it isn't, and the Church, in attempting to do this, is exceeding it's own authority and extending that authority into the domain of civil society - it is taking something away from the rest of us and our need to both see a real constructive approach to correction for the perpetrators and a need for the collective society to be able to provide justice and mercy as we see fit. It is to answer these issues that creates the need to make clergy mandatory reporters - all of which have very little (if anything at all) to do with opening the confession.

Finally, you keep asserting that the Church's right to seal the confessional should be absolute - and yet I think it is both a reasonable and a necessary position to make that there are limits that society as a whole can and should place on religion. You continue to refuse to address this point. Do you believe that there are limits that all religion should be constrained by to maintain their place within society?

Children should not be faced with abuse at the hands of the religious leaders who have authority in their lives. The millions of documented cases remind us though that it has happened. Should we (as a society) simply trust the Church who has betrayed the trust of children over and over again?

Edited July 1, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[3DOP]

Ben, yes, let us review.

Two hours ago you said:

"I haven't said that I support this legislation."

This is from your first post to me on Sunday at 7:44 PM about the legislation under discussion:

"...the Catholic Church has a history that cannot be ignored - they have enabled predators to continue their evil actions. Their claim that confession is privileged and sacrosanct has regularly been invoked in a way that, at least in appearance, seeks to absolve themselves from any guild or responsibility for these actions. 

It is clear that there are instances where religious belief should not trump the public interests. We do not allow religions to kill. We don't allow Jews, for example, to stone the perpetrators of certain sins - even though such an act is spelled out in the Old Testament. I think that given the history of religious organizations in trying to provide their own judgement or leniency in these cases - as opposed to society as a whole - have proven to be untrustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted."

In your final paragraph after you offer the reasoning which I will critique below you said: "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted."

The bold is mine of course. The discussion could have taken a different turn if you had said of the legislation which would require a Catholic priest to break the confessional seal, "I have a little problem with the law as enacted". Instead you said in unequivocal language: "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." I think you need to take the blame yourself if you feel misunderstood. By accident, I appreciate the opportunity to reacquaint the board with your kooky comment about how the state prevents Jews from stoning people guilty of violating the Mosaic law as a reason for why you, (on Sunday at least), had "...absolutely no problem with the law as enacted". Jews can't stone Americans (as they would if they were not stopped by American laws?) because of American legislation, therefore, Catholic priests should be denied any claim that "confession is privileged and sacrosanct..."? Along with your explicit statement bolded above, your "argument" certainly gave me, and perhaps others, the impression on Sunday that you thought that the law should force the Catholic priest to break his vows and the confessional seal in the unlikely circumstance that he should learn who perpetrated a certain heinous crime. 

That raises another question. Why just the one heinous crime? 

 

Edited July 1, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I think 3DOP has made it clear it was a problem for him and most Catholic parents when he said 

I don’t think it helps to trivialize Catholic response to the point of suggesting it is not a problem for a devout or any other Catholic (in this case Rory) that the CC did not take significant steps in many cases to prevent abuse when leaders learned of it.  I would be hurt if you said something like that to me.

Calm, hey. Thanks for the support. I needed it at that moment. I didn't give you thumbs up at the time because I feared it might be seen as self-serving. I don't care how it is seen now. You have opposed me on a few occasions.   

I honor you because you have a skill that is so very lacking in our day, an understanding of the "art of disagreement". We need to see the good intentions of those with whom we disagree. Lacking that, our culture today views ideological opponents with contempt. I am guilty...trying to improve. But I see you as a model of moderate discourse who avoids belittling.

It has been a pleasure to share the 21st Century with you on the internet.

May God always bless and keep you and yours

Rory