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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.