Posted on 02/26/2017 2:27:38 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
The issue here is breaking the seal of the confessional. If Francis changes canon law to allow it, it will destroy the sacrament. It's not going to stop at child abuse; attorneys would want it extended to every type of crime. Who would be stupid enough to go to confession then, knowing that anything they said could be repeated outside of the confessional and potentially used against them?
Stop calling this just sex abuse, just pedophilia. It’s a specific type of person who wants to bugger little boys. It seems that the priesthood has been systemically infiltrated by this type of person.
Where is this cover-up confession principle in the Bible? It’s one thing to confess thinking bad thoughts; it’s quite another to confess acting upon them.
Pedophiles who have acted out their degenerate fantasies repeatedly are not going to change, regardless of what folks think happens in a Catholic Confessional. Besides which, the priest listening to the confession may be of the same degeneracy ...
Where does it say in the Bible “Confess your sins to one another, and then you can snitch the content of your brother’s confession to Caesar”?
The allegations here are that the two pedophiles used the seal of confession to hide their mutual crimes.
I am not a canon lawyer, but if you I go kill someone, and then confess it to each other and say all is forgiven, that is at best very irregular.
For the record, I am not for breaking the seal of confession. And if a lawyer argues otherwise, he had better report any illegal activity his clients do.
How about refusing absolution unless they come forward? Or, at a minimum, until they leave the priesthood.
Even if one is refused absoluton, the seal of confession applies. So that wont stop those who want to go to hell.
It may be that Canon law has to adjust a bit to uncover clergy who abuse childrn, God, and their office. The Seal of confession is not directly connected to the ten commandments.
I’m not really sure about that thought. It would be a huge change however small that change seems.
Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher said for a priest to repeat anything that has occurred during confession would be a very serious breach of trust and the sacrament.
Archbishop Fisher said he could not withhold absolution from someone who confessed to abusing a child and if they were genuinely contrite would forgive their sin, as he would a terrorist or a murderer.
When the Archbishop or priest gives a penance, why not require the person to make a public confession (possibly in writing)?
The situation you describe is covered under canon law under “solicitation”. It is considered extremely serious and the penalty of excommunication is mentioned not only for the confessor, but also for the penitent if they don’t report the solicitation to the bishop within a month if possible.
My understanding is that according to current canon law (984) a confessor can not cause anything detrimental (such as imprisonment) to happen to the penitent due to what he has heard in confession. If the confessor believes there is no firm purpose of amendment he can withhold absolution, but he can’t put that kind of requirement on the penitent. He can urge the penitent to turn himself in, but not as part of required penance.
Note, this is part of canon law and not doctrine. Canon law can be changed, and in the early days of the church public confession was required for some sins.
See #11
A change in canon law in order to help civil authorities do their job seem laudable but it would be wrong. Where does the Church draw the line then. Would this be required of all professions that have confidentiality as part of their ethics? Why not require defense attorneys tell police when a client admit their guilt.
It is obvious some here are not observing the caucus designation. Was it lifted?
There is no wiggle room whatsoever. A priest who breaks the seal is excommunicated.
A priest who molests minors is not contrite unless he agrees to turn himself in to the police, and therefore cannot be absolved.
The bishop is still mired in clericalism.
“Pope Francis reduces penalties for paedophile priests to a lifetime of prayer
The Pope faces widespread condemnation for his ‘merciful’ approach to child sex offenders”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pope-francis-reduces-penalties-paedophile-priests-lifetime-prayer-1608591
Not Catholic but it would seem to me that molesting children and lying (by omission in confession) are both sins so why wouldn’t a pedophile just not tell? If he’s already molesting kids, why not just keep that to himself?
The merciful part is given when they confess and receive absolution. That does not negate temporal justice.
Interesting
I was at a Mass in high school when everyone obtained a general absolution as the Priest made a public confession.
Perhaps priests should make public confessions. It could be hard but beneficial and bring more back to the confessional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.