Replies

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.

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.

This part puzzled me almost as much as the assertion that the child would automatically be able to judge who was most appropriate to tell. A serial abuser would likely have poisoned a child's mind against the police, as an insurance policy.

Knowledge of criminal acts places a special burden on a priest. I think it's likely that a perp who confesses would be relieved to have the assistance of a priest in submitting to civil authority.

But we are talking about two separate spheres of authority and justice. If we demand that a priest simply becomes a civil authority reporting agency, all the avenues to rectify a situation without civil authority are gone, and the safety and peace of the confessional is gone. The laws of man are not the same as the laws of God.