Do you think religions should be required to report sexual abuse when someone goes in to confess it? I have a family member that confessed to abusing
someone to the Bishop and nothing was done about it.
This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Persephonee · 22-25, F
Absolutely not. The seal of the confessional is inviolate. A priest who tells, without the very specific permission of the person who made the confession, is automatically excommunicated (which is bad enough for the soul) and when discovered will be deprived of his priestly functions as a matter of course until the issue is resolved eg through some kind of tribunal. The Church takes it very very seriously.
People simply will not confess things if they believe a priest will blab about their sins to others. Even if a priest were prepared to face sanctions from the Church for reporting something confessed to him, people would simply not confess 'big' things in the first place, making a legal obligation to report confessions pretty pointless.
But:
A priest at least in the Catholic Church can make absolution after the confession conditional on the person turning him/herself in to the police/etc, however. Making restitution part of the penance assigned is actually quite common, and admitting guilt in serious criminal matters would count as this too.
If someone takes their faith seriously enough that they confess some awful act they did, they will also take an instruction from their confessor to admit their guilt to the appropriate authority, equally seriously. Their immortal soul would be in jeopardy.
Otherwise, why would they even confess it in the first place?
People simply will not confess things if they believe a priest will blab about their sins to others. Even if a priest were prepared to face sanctions from the Church for reporting something confessed to him, people would simply not confess 'big' things in the first place, making a legal obligation to report confessions pretty pointless.
But:
A priest at least in the Catholic Church can make absolution after the confession conditional on the person turning him/herself in to the police/etc, however. Making restitution part of the penance assigned is actually quite common, and admitting guilt in serious criminal matters would count as this too.
If someone takes their faith seriously enough that they confess some awful act they did, they will also take an instruction from their confessor to admit their guilt to the appropriate authority, equally seriously. Their immortal soul would be in jeopardy.
Otherwise, why would they even confess it in the first place?
View 6 more replies »
NortiusMaximus · M
@Persephonee
So, even if your child were tortured and killed, you would still want a priest to withhold evidence about the crime. It's clear you put special privileges of priests (just christian ones?) over the safety and well being of your own children. Have you told your child(ren) and those of your friends and relatives that? Obviously, if a priest doesn't know who made the confession s/he won't have much evidence to pass to the authorities anyway.
So, even if your child were tortured and killed, you would still want a priest to withhold evidence about the crime. It's clear you put special privileges of priests (just christian ones?) over the safety and well being of your own children. Have you told your child(ren) and those of your friends and relatives that? Obviously, if a priest doesn't know who made the confession s/he won't have much evidence to pass to the authorities anyway.
plus the perpetrator's own soul is in even greater jeopardy than it was already.
That's just a matter of religious belief. Not everyone shares that belief.It's an admission to God of one's wrongdoing.
Again, that's just a matter of religious belief. If a person wants to confess to their imaginary friend, they can do it directly, no need to to involve a third party. You're advocating special treatment/rights for members of a particular club that you approve of. If christian priests are to be allowed to withhold evidence, there is no reason to not extend that right to everyone.because we're going to wade very deeply into issues of hearsay.
No, confession is not hearsay. Hearsay is when a person passes on what another person said about a third party. i.e.' X' told me that 'Y' did it. 'X' admitting to doing it herself is confession and, as such, admissible in evidence (at least in the UK). More fundamentally priests shouldn't be the state's spies vis-a-vis their congregations, which is basically what a reporting requirement entails.
That same arguement could be applied to anyone, not just religious leaders.
Persephonee · 22-25, F
@NortiusMaximus Yes, finally, we're in agreement.
It's a matter of religious belief.
Most of the time precepts of one's faith and demands of the state don't necessarily conflict, but sometimes they do and this would be one of those times. The Church's history (and this is broader than Christianity, after all) is littered with examples of courageous men and women, both in ancient times and the 21st century, who refused to kowtow to excessively intrusive demands of their state, even to the point of suffering death. Sorry but the simple matter is that the confessional seal is so fundamental that it's not negotiable, and has never been.
You don't need to resort to "imaginary friend" insults. You yourself recognise that to me (and millions of others), God isn't imaginary anyway. Again this is not something that you can argue away, if one has belief.
The point I was making about hearsay was that in the sacrament of Confession, the penitent talks to God. The priest is there as an intermediary, and in effect is merely overhearing a conversation between a human being and God. While a priest ideally offers advice and counsel during a confession, he also doesn't actually need to (and arguably shouldn't) listen to every minute detail. The priest says words of absolution in return, of course, but he does so on behalf of God, rather than acting in his own power as a human being.
God can't be a witness (and I can't help feeling would be rather hostile, whichever side called him!), and He is the addressee in the sacrament of Confession. That's the point I was making.
Yes, we can in real privacy admit to God our own wrongdoings. The sacrament, however, is something which Christ established, and the tradition descends entirely from Apostolic times (even if the form, such as public vs private confession) has changed over time.
Were Confession to be abolished (as though that were possible) and we all in the privacy of our bedrooms admitted our own faults, there would be even less likelihood of information a priest discovered being reported, so don't argue for that.
Exactly. But religious leaders are in a particular and very personal position of trust, as well.
It's a matter of religious belief.
Most of the time precepts of one's faith and demands of the state don't necessarily conflict, but sometimes they do and this would be one of those times. The Church's history (and this is broader than Christianity, after all) is littered with examples of courageous men and women, both in ancient times and the 21st century, who refused to kowtow to excessively intrusive demands of their state, even to the point of suffering death. Sorry but the simple matter is that the confessional seal is so fundamental that it's not negotiable, and has never been.
You don't need to resort to "imaginary friend" insults. You yourself recognise that to me (and millions of others), God isn't imaginary anyway. Again this is not something that you can argue away, if one has belief.
The point I was making about hearsay was that in the sacrament of Confession, the penitent talks to God. The priest is there as an intermediary, and in effect is merely overhearing a conversation between a human being and God. While a priest ideally offers advice and counsel during a confession, he also doesn't actually need to (and arguably shouldn't) listen to every minute detail. The priest says words of absolution in return, of course, but he does so on behalf of God, rather than acting in his own power as a human being.
God can't be a witness (and I can't help feeling would be rather hostile, whichever side called him!), and He is the addressee in the sacrament of Confession. That's the point I was making.
Yes, we can in real privacy admit to God our own wrongdoings. The sacrament, however, is something which Christ established, and the tradition descends entirely from Apostolic times (even if the form, such as public vs private confession) has changed over time.
Were Confession to be abolished (as though that were possible) and we all in the privacy of our bedrooms admitted our own faults, there would be even less likelihood of information a priest discovered being reported, so don't argue for that.
"More fundamentally priests shouldn't be the state's spies vis-a-vis their congregations, which is basically what a reporting requirement entails."
That same arguement could be applied to anyone, not just religious leaders.
That same arguement could be applied to anyone, not just religious leaders.
Exactly. But religious leaders are in a particular and very personal position of trust, as well.
NortiusMaximus · M
@Persephonee
Yes, finally, we're in agreement.
I presume you referring to the fact that you would be happy for a priest to cover up a crime of your child being abused and killed. TBH, from what a lot of christians say here, I can't say I'm surprised. :(Most of the time precepts of one's faith and demands of the state don't necessarily conflict, but sometimes they do and this would be one of those times.
A religion is just a club for people with similar interests. Club rules must never be permitted to take precedence over the law but that's what you're advocating - allowing the club leaders (priests) to withhold evidence of serious crimes.Sorry but the simple matter is that the confessional seal is so fundamental that it's not negotiable, and has never been.
The law is not negotiable either. No one, not even someone claiming to speak for a god, can be permitted to pick and choose which laws they want to obey.You yourself recognise that to me (and millions of others), God isn't imaginary anyway.
Your beliefs do not change the facts. Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny etc. are not imaginary to millions of children either.The point I was making about hearsay was that in the sacrament of Confession, the penitent talks to God. The priest is there as an intermediary, and in effect is merely overhearing a conversation between a human being and God.
That still wouldn't make what the priest hears hearsay. Don't just take my word for it, you can find a an explanation of hearsay and the rules of evidence in any basic legal textbook.The sacrament, however, is something which Christ established
Irrelevant, it all comes down to whether rules made or established by a club should be allowed to override the law. I say they shouldn't; you appear to advocate their being allowed to in the case of a certain club.Were Confession to be abolished (as though that were possible) and we all in the privacy of our bedrooms admitted our own faults, there would be even less likelihood of information a priest discovered being reported, so don't argue for that.
No, it would not make any difference if priests withheld evidence anyway.But religious leaders are in a particular and very personal position of trust, as well.
That's no excuse for covering up serious crimes.
CopperCicada · M
I appreciate the seal of the confessional. There is no motivation to be honest and intimate if one is not confident that what one shares is not held in confidence. Take any concrete example. Bob jerks off to porn. Why would he confess that if the priest will tell his wife or other parishioners? He won’t. And so he misses the opportunity for confession and atonement.
I also appreciate the risks in the seal of the confessional not being inviolate. A Romanian friend told me long ago how the parish priests were telling party leadership what people shared in confession. And so people were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured on the basis of violation of priest penitent privilege.
I can accept anything disclosed in the confessional not being allowed as evidence.
I can accept a confession of past crimes being privileged. Bob lifted $10K out of the safe at his job 15 years ago. Or he realizes now he date raped Sue in high school.
I can’t accept the confession of ongoing, planned, or intended criminal activity being privileged. From the side of the penitent, a confession without a genuine intention of atonement or being held accountable is not a real confession. From the side of the confessor, I can’t see how absolution can be offered by a person who is complicit or accessory to a criminal activity.
So I don’t see Bob telling his priest that he’s fucking his kid every other night as a confession. Or Sue telling her priest that she is packing her apartment with nitrate fertilizers and is going to blow up the school in her hood.
It’s certainly clear that there are martyrs who did not violate the confessional. If you look at the narratives, they were all in political contexts. Not to protect the privacy and privilege of Bob who confessed to fucking his foster children.
In most general terms I am against any religious law superseding local, state, or federal law.
I also appreciate the risks in the seal of the confessional not being inviolate. A Romanian friend told me long ago how the parish priests were telling party leadership what people shared in confession. And so people were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured on the basis of violation of priest penitent privilege.
I can accept anything disclosed in the confessional not being allowed as evidence.
I can accept a confession of past crimes being privileged. Bob lifted $10K out of the safe at his job 15 years ago. Or he realizes now he date raped Sue in high school.
I can’t accept the confession of ongoing, planned, or intended criminal activity being privileged. From the side of the penitent, a confession without a genuine intention of atonement or being held accountable is not a real confession. From the side of the confessor, I can’t see how absolution can be offered by a person who is complicit or accessory to a criminal activity.
So I don’t see Bob telling his priest that he’s fucking his kid every other night as a confession. Or Sue telling her priest that she is packing her apartment with nitrate fertilizers and is going to blow up the school in her hood.
It’s certainly clear that there are martyrs who did not violate the confessional. If you look at the narratives, they were all in political contexts. Not to protect the privacy and privilege of Bob who confessed to fucking his foster children.
In most general terms I am against any religious law superseding local, state, or federal law.
meggie · F
My families religion had numerous cases of child abuse that was hidden for years. Each time it happened the offender would be moved to another place. The kids were not believed and were too scared to speak about it. Someone left the religion and wrote a book about it and since then many have come forward.
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
The church exist in our society.
Our society exists within laws.
The church should never be allowed to act as its own government within a government.
I think the only proper way to handle a confession as you have mentioned is the priest who receives the confession should have to drag the confessor from the confessional and beat his ever loving ass right there in the church.
Our society exists within laws.
The church should never be allowed to act as its own government within a government.
I think the only proper way to handle a confession as you have mentioned is the priest who receives the confession should have to drag the confessor from the confessional and beat his ever loving ass right there in the church.
SUPERVlXEN · F
SUPERVlXEN · F
I guess the church/religion is used for receiving pastoral care and sort of alternative to seek counseling at a therapist. There are certain rules/laws for the latter and how far the client confidentiality reaches. In general tho, the confidentially can be breached...
- When the client poses an imminent danger to themselves or others, and breaking confidentiality is necessary to resolve the danger.
- When the therapist suspects child, elder, or dependent adult abuse.
- When the client has directed the therapist to share information about their case.
- When the therapist receives a qualifying court order.
I can't see why there should be different rules for any church/religion.
- When the client poses an imminent danger to themselves or others, and breaking confidentiality is necessary to resolve the danger.
- When the therapist suspects child, elder, or dependent adult abuse.
- When the client has directed the therapist to share information about their case.
- When the therapist receives a qualifying court order.
I can't see why there should be different rules for any church/religion.
SW-User
I'm not sure if there is any good measure, honestly. Recently I keep hearing about stories of Amanda Todd, a young East Coast kid in Canada who took her own life. First reports were about how people shamed her, fellow students. Now it's being learned some adult was extorting her, blackmailing her. I encourage the investigation, but does it help her now (dead), but maybe it helps people in the future in recognizing signs and for authority to see maybe she was bullied locally, yet really they were teenagers who equally knew little, and the real cause is some dirty man overseas on the internet?
spjennifer · 61-69, T
There is a significant difference between what is considered a "sin" and a serious criminal offense. The young boy who masturbates while looking at his Sister and her friends in bikinis is considered "sinful" (not that it is). The man who confesses to his priest that he murdered his neighbour should not fall under "Confessional Privilege". The churches must come to the realization that not all so-called "sins" can be forgiven, nor should they be...
Interesting question. Yes is my first reaction, and that if the Church aids and abets criminals, it should be treated as a criminal organization, but I recognize that I'm approaching the question with some bias.
Having said that, is there some middle ground, like there is for pyschiatrists, where even though they can keep quiet about past crimes, they have an obligation to report to protect against imminent future crimes?
Having said that, is there some middle ground, like there is for pyschiatrists, where even though they can keep quiet about past crimes, they have an obligation to report to protect against imminent future crimes?
DffrntDrmmr · M
My loyalties rank in this order:
1. Me and my God or conscience
2. Me and my family
3. Me and my government
The state doesn't even exist until after the first two, and then only to serve me and others.
Even the US government has traditionally honored this pecking order and it is codified into law.
Prioritizing the state above either of the first two can lead to horrible things.
With Leftism a growing menace to society it's important to understand why God/conscience and family are prioritized. Leftist governments put the state above all else.
1. Me and my God or conscience
2. Me and my family
3. Me and my government
The state doesn't even exist until after the first two, and then only to serve me and others.
Even the US government has traditionally honored this pecking order and it is codified into law.
Prioritizing the state above either of the first two can lead to horrible things.
With Leftism a growing menace to society it's important to understand why God/conscience and family are prioritized. Leftist governments put the state above all else.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
That's a difficult question. Religious confession is supposed to be completely confidential. If it wasn't, people might not confess at all. But the person hearing the confession definitely ought to urge the person to admit to the crime (to the victim or police). They could even make that a condition for forgiveness.
NortiusMaximus · M
@SW-User @DffrntDrmmr
As I have just asked [@Persophenee], If your child were tortured and killed and the killer admitted the crime to a priest in the confessional, would you really want that priest to kept quiet about it?
The church has been shown to cover up a lot of child abuse.
As I have just asked [@Persophenee], If your child were tortured and killed and the killer admitted the crime to a priest in the confessional, would you really want that priest to kept quiet about it?
The church has been shown to cover up a lot of child abuse.
SW-User
@NortiusMaximus One can always come up with extreme examples like that, but I don't think they are useful for thinking about things clearly. In your example, I would want to torture the perpetrator and kill them myself -- but I don't think that should be legal.
NortiusMaximus · M
@SW-User It didn't matter how extreme the crime was when you were advocating allowing a priest to withhold evidence about it. Just answer the question, it's simple enough.
Your reply suggests you wouldn't want a priest to cover up a serious crime that someone you care about were a victim of, only if someone else were the victim. Well, guess what, most decent people wouldn't want a priest to cover up a serious crime regardless of who was the victim.
Your reply suggests you wouldn't want a priest to cover up a serious crime that someone you care about were a victim of, only if someone else were the victim. Well, guess what, most decent people wouldn't want a priest to cover up a serious crime regardless of who was the victim.
kentex35 · 100+, M
I believe you. One cover up begets another.
I really believe Francis will get a lot done. I took Francis of Assisi for my confirmation name and grade the first Pope. I was an altar boy but never had any trouble. Now at the all boy high school there were a few. Lay teachers and brothers or priest. I think Francis will get for financial aide to some for therapy help
I really believe Francis will get a lot done. I took Francis of Assisi for my confirmation name and grade the first Pope. I was an altar boy but never had any trouble. Now at the all boy high school there were a few. Lay teachers and brothers or priest. I think Francis will get for financial aide to some for therapy help
