TESTING THE FAITH 'Confession' of child abuse no longer secret?

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 27, 2006

[NYer]

A bill under consideration by New Hampshire legislators would require Catholic priests and other religious figures to divulge any information they hear regarding child abuse, even if told to them by parishioners in the private act of "confession."

According to the Concord Monitor newspaper, the Granite State currently has a statute requiring anyone in the state who suspects child abuse to report it to authorities. The Child Protection Act, enacted in 1979, also places a mandatory reporting requirement on clergy.

However, the paper said, a separate statute exempts clergymen and women from having to provide court testimony regarding anything told to them in confidence during an act of confession.

The current legislation under consideration would amend state law and require religious figures to provide unqualified reporting of any abuse divulged to them, under any circumstances. It is the second time since 2004 New Hampshire lawmakers have attempted to pass such a measure.

Confession is a sacrament most commonly associated with Catholics, in which the faithful are required to periodically confess sins – generally violations of the Ten Commandments – to priests, who then absolve them of those sins before God. For it to be valid, it must be held in the strictest of confidence, Catholic officials told the paper.

Church hierarchy in New Hampshire, though mindful of the seriousness of child abuse, nevertheless criticized any effort to force clergy to reveal information passed along during confession.

Diane Quinlan, chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, said that while "there's no question that child abuse is a terrible crime," allowing a "limited exception" for confession was necessary for the uninhibited practice of Catholicism.

"That's how serious this is in our belief," she told the Monitor.

Local police officials – some who are practicing Catholics as well as leaders in the church – still argued for passage of the law.

"We feel it's important that there be no exemptions from the mandatory reporting statute," Northfield Police Chief Scott Hilliard, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, said.

Some lawmakers said Catholic priests had told them they would go to prison before divulging any information told them in confession.

Such defiance could make the law moot, some argued.

Others said they were worried about whether such an ordinance would pass constitutional muster. But both sides – pro and con – presented Supreme Court opinions supporting their positions.

[Campion]

It's not a "Catholic thing"; the law generally does not compel clergymen and certain other professionals to tell things given them in confidence. Every hear of "attorney-client privilege"? How about not forcing a wife to testify against her husband? Same idea.

[GVnana]

This is just wrong.

I was a child victim of sexual abuse. Children are smarter and better at sorting out their own survival than we ever give them credit for.

If a child goes to a priest they've gone under the umbrage of the sanctity of the confessional. If they wanted criminal justice they would seek out a cop.

[beezdotcom]

If a child goes to a priest they've gone under the umbrage of the sanctity of the confessional. If they wanted criminal justice they would seek out a cop.

Aside from all of the other obvious strangeness of that statement, it doesn't address the issue of the guy who, in a brief moment of remorse, confesses to the priest and says "I raped some kids."

[xenophiles]

What is the point of this?

Suppose it passes, which seems unlikely. And suppose it withstands Constitutional challenges, which seems uncertain. And suppose priests are actually willing to violate the confessional in order to comply with secular law, which I suppose some might be. So now there's an exception to the seal, and a disclaimer hanging outside the booth: "IF YOU TELL ME ABOUT CHILD ABUSE I WILL REPORT IT TO THE POLICE".

What idiotic legislator thinks that someone unwilling to go to the police will enter the booth and talk about child abuse?

(Or maybe I should ask, "how many idiotic voters will vote for a self-serving hypocrite who pushes for this law?")

[SoothingDave]

Good point. I'm not a catholic. I'm baptist, but even so, I feel comfortable talking to my pastor about anything knowing that it's not going to leave his office unless we agree that it will.

Exactly.

Say someone is guilty of a heinous crime and is on the edge about it. Confession to a priest can bring about a resolution of those feelings. A priest can withold forgiveness if repentence is not shown, and can make confession to civil authorities a condition of absolution. A priest can counsel a person and make him see the necessity of turning himself in. This may not happen immediately, but if a person knows he can in confidence discuss such things, this may be the end result.

On the other hand, a person feeling pangs of guilt and wanting to talk to a priest but who knows that the priest is a de jure arm of the law will liekly avoid seeking out the priest's counsel to begin with.

Bottom line: there are confidences protected in law (husband/wife, attorney/client, penitent/confessor) that have a long legal history. Fracturing them is an unwise thing.

SD

[ArrogantBustard]

You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the topic. It outlines very nicely the Catholic teaching on the topic, which is, as usual, based in Scripture. You may well not like it, you may even disagree with it. Fine. I expect that. But to claim as you do, that "there is no Biblical support for it" is simply false.

[SoothingDave]

If a child goes to a priest they've gone under the umbrage of the sanctity of the confessional. If they wanted criminal justice they would seek out a cop.

Huh? I think you have things confused. This isn't about a child telling a priest about abuse. It's about the abuser confessing his sin.

SD

[Campion]

Something that makes it even more stupid and worthless is that penitents always have the option to confess anonymously, behind the priest's back, or behind a screen. And a Catholic is basically free to confess to any priest who has permission to hear confessions, so there's no guarantee that particular priest has heard a particular penitent before, or knows him, or will ever hear him again.

So, given that, what does the nincompoop legislator think is going to happen? A priest is required by law to call up the police and say "Someone confessed abusing a child. I don't know who the person is, but if I heard his voice again, I might recognize it. Or maybe not." And the police are supposed to do what with that information, exactly? (The priest, meanwhile, if the Church law is enforced, has ended his active ministry.)

[GVnana]

What's "strange" about anything I posted?

[beezdotcom]

For most (but not all) people on this thread, this really isn't a discussion about a bad law anymore - most (but not all) people tend to view this as running afoul of the Consititution. It has really become more of a stone-throwing session about the seal of the confessional.

[beezdotcom]

For most (but not all) people on this thread, this really isn't a discussion about a bad law anymore - most (but not all) people tend to view this as running afoul of the Consititution. It has really become more of a stone-throwing session about the seal of the confessional.

[Dustbunny]

A good Catholic priest would urge the penitent to surrender himself - but cannot and must not go to the cops himself.

Exactly

[GVnana]

OK. But if you allow for the confessional to be violated, you've closed one of the last safe refuges for truth --whether it's offered the perp or the victim. A priest is not a vehicle for the authority of law enforcement.

Criminal justice affords the right of the accused to be confronted by the accuser. If the accuser does not exercise the right to obtain civil justice, why should a priest be required to set the wheels in motion on a process the accuser does not seek on their own?

[AnAmericanMother]

It was St. John Nepomucene (of Nepomuk), a Bohemian priest.

The cherub has his finger to his lips in token of silence.

Wenceslaus IV, Emperor of Bohemia, was a very jealous husband (and BTW without cause). He tried to force St. John to reveal what his wife, Queen Sophie, had said in confession. St. John refused, and the king had him tortured and then drowned in the Moldau River.

"The moment St John’s body touched the water, thousands of tiny stars encircled it and a fire burned on the river's surface. A stream of light issued from deep in the river, reflecting the glory of the martyr's soul. His body drifted slowly downstream throwing off rays of light in all directions. A 'troop of light,' followed the body, as if to represent a funeral procession. The whole city came alive with excitement and citizens gathered to see the spectacle, while the tyrant, terrified by the news, fled to a house in the country, forbidding any one to follow him."

Tomb of St. John Nepomuk

[infowarrior]

What if its not official 'confession'. But something that came up in private conversation?

The "seal of the confessional" is quite specific. What you described doesn't pertain under the seal, and could be divulged without violation of the seal...

the infowarrior

[beezdotcom]

What's "strange" about anything I posted?

Your whole spin that if a child doen't go to the police, then the police need not get involved. I find that a rather odd generalization.

[GVnana]

Well actually, it's YOUR generalization. My answer is post #53.

[SoothingDave]

OK. But if you allow for the confessional to be violated, you've closed one of the last safe refuges for truth --whether it's offered the perp or the victim. A priest is not a vehicle for the authority of law enforcement. Criminal justice affords the right of the accused to be confronted by the accuser. If the accuser does not exercise the right to obtain civil justice, why should a priest be required to set the wheels in motion on a process the accuser does not seek on their own?

I'm arguing for keeping the confessional seal absolute. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. I was just puzzled, as others were, why you would think a child telling a priest that he was the victim of abuse would be classified as under a confessional seal.

If a child went to the priest in the confessional and said he was being abused, the priest could not act on that information. But he could tell the child, "tell me that again as soon as I step outside the confessional." There is no problem on that end. The only problem would be if the criminal confesses.

SD

[lawgirl]

Yep-just because the state dictates it the priesthood doesn't have to do it. Interesting story- there was a case about 30 years ago in my hometown where someone was murdered and people thought that the one man they really think pulled the trigger convinced his partner in the crime, a minor, to take the blame for it thinking that he would not get a harsh sentence due to his age. Well, the jury sent him to jail for life and there wasn't enough evidence to get the other man so he got off scot free. Well the free man shortly thereafter went to confession and less than a year later the priest's hair had turned completely white. I think there can be quite a burden to keeping that vow, but kept it must be.

[beezdotcom]

Well actually, it's YOUR generalization. My answer is post #53.

Actually, it's YOUR generalization that children are always capable of exercising such judgement. Some children are also too young to realize that vegetables are good for them. Some children let Daddy continue to rape them because they're too young to realize that losing that parent to jail may be better for them.