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?
"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?"
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"!