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.

[GVnana]

I don't think otherwise.

[SoothingDave]

I had read the entry on the Sacrament of Confession, and on the Seal of the Confessional before I wrote. In the article on the Seal, there is no biblical justification offered, only canon law and tradition. The Sacrament itself is vaguely supported in John and Matthew, but not specifically.

We are not prohibited from using logic. If we are to accept as a given that sacramental confession is what is "vaguely" supported in Scripture, it follows that such conversations must be kept in confidence. Companies do not do business with each other without legal "non-disclosure" agreements about insider information or company "secrets" that may be revealed.

SD

[TaxachusettsMan]

"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

Yeah, that DOES come pretty close, doesn't it?

Stick to minerals, man.

[ArrogantBustard]

You wrote: "Indeed, there's no Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession. "

The CE article clearly and unambiguously refutes that claim. I suggest that you retract it.

Your claim regarding the SEAL of the confessional may have some merit ... but as you know the Church rejects the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, so who cares?

[absolootezer0]

make confession to civil authorities a condition of absolution

that was my first thought.

[MineralMan]

"The CE article clearly and unambiguously refutes that claim. I suggest that you retract it.

Your claim regarding the SEAL of the confessional may have some merit ... but as you know the Church rejects the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, so who cares?"

---

I disagree, I'm afraid, regarding the Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession. However, as you say, the RCC doesn't use sola scriptura as the foundation of its doctrine, so it's a moot point, as regards the RCC. Most protestant denominations have abandoned confession altogether, except for the private confession of sins in prayer. That eliminates the problem of the confessor keeping secret what is told.

I'm not denigrating the RCC's doctrine. As I said to another poster, it's an academic issue for me, anyhow. I just don't find the scriptural references used in the CE article to be particularly convincing. It's weak support for the sacrament.

[ArrogantBustard]

(1)Disagree that it exists, or (2)disagree that it is sufficient, or (3)disagree that it is correctly interpreted?

(1) above is simply madness, refusal to see what is in black and white right before your eyes.

(2) and (3) above are part of the dispute between Catholics and protestants.

The literal meaning of your statement "Indeed, there's no Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession" is (1) above. If that is what you mean ... I can't help you. I'm not a psychiatrist. If you mean (2) or (3) above ... I suggest saying what you mean. "No support" does not mean the same thing as "inadequate support" or "wrongly interpreted support".

[beezdotcom]

A priest can withold forgiveness if repentence is not shown, and can make confession to civil authorities a condition of absolution.

But who will dare to confess, if they know the priest must turn them in they must turn themselves in to be absolved?


Of course, the overarching premise is slightly flawed - not everyone confesses just so that they can carry out the penance to achieve absolution. Some people just want someone else to share the burden of their secret, and do no more than that - however, such a burden unshared sometimes drives people to turn themselves in, too.

[trisham]

bttt

[SoothingDave]

But who will dare to confess, if they know they must turn themselves in to be absolved?

Since this is largely a hypothetical question anyway, we can suppose lots of things. Certainly someone who is seeking to avoid capture would not usually be looking for a priest to offer absolution. Regardless of whether it is the priest or themselves who must initiate the police proceedings.

I think the confessional serves its purpose for those who are coming to grips with their sin/crime and want to know that forgiveness is available. A priest acting in confession often acts as the voice of conscience. A grave sinner may come to hear the priest say what he knows deep in his heart must be done.

SD

[narses]

There is no Biblical support for the seal of the confessional. Indeed, there's no Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession.

Can some of my learned friends in the Catholic Caucus correct this misinformation?

[webheart]

As a fallen Catholic, I have only one thing to say about this, and that is that the Bible says to "Obey the laws of the land," and to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Therefore, if Caesar wants to know when a child molester confesses, if it is the law of the land, the priest has to go along with it.

[SoothingDave]

As a fallen Catholic, I have only one thing to say about this, and that is that the Bible says to "Obey the laws of the land," and to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

And where is the Frank family hiding?

SD

[Dajjal]

There is no Biblical support for the seal of the confessional. Indeed, there's no Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession.

Here are two good summarizations of the support for Confession being a sacrament on the basis of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/penance.html

OTOH, MineralMan is correct that the Seal of Confession is based upon Catholic Canon Law governing the behavior of priests. It was doubtless an ancient custom -- it is hard to imagine the sacrament without it -- but the earliest written codifications I can find via the web seem to those of Gratian (c.1151) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Gratian worked with older documents, but this article does not what they might be; one would need to look at the "Decretum" itself to find the citation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm

[webheart]

Ouch!

[jimfree]

Then we should also remove the spousal and attorney's exemptions, perhaps for other crimes as well as this.

[Diva]

I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.

And I appreciate that!

[mdmathis6]

Christ granted forgiveness to the thief on the cross but the thief still suffered a just death for his earthly crimes. Consider the effects on the souls of the children who have been abused who may ultimately reject Christ, blaming him for the harm done to them by such abusers. Doesn't Paul adjure all Christians to follow the laws of their kings and magistrates? What puts the priests above such laws?

A priest may hear confession of such an abuser and advise him to repentence. But could it be credibly argued that for a priest to not report such a crime is to collude with the criminal?

Still the question would be upon what questions would you draw the lines of confidentiality...a man who confesses his infidelity of marriage, should not the priest then speak with the unknowing spouse on the same principle of honesty or integrity? How about the teen that steals money from his dad's wallet?


If the Catholics claim the church can announce rules and traditions based on Christ's speaking of the "loosening or binding" power granted the church, then the Catholics had better issue a "binding" regulation command that its priests report child abusers, lest God tie a millstone around the necks of the entire Catholic apparatus and cast it into the the sea...as Christ stated should happen to those who hurt his "little ones"!

[SoothingDave]

Doesn't Paul adjure all Christians to follow the laws of their kings and magistrates? What puts the priests above such laws?

Tell us where the runaway slaves are hiding. Tell us now.

(Honestly, does anyone around here even think about what they are writing? Is it really a Biblical principle to follow all laws blindly?)

SD

[VOYAGER]

"So where in God's law does it say that he has to protect Child Molestors? "

Nowhere.

There is no Biblical support for the seal of the confessional. Indeed, there's no Biblical support for the Sacrament of Confession.

This is a breath of fresh air and needed to be said.