Posted on 05/10/2019 8:52:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
In response to pending bill requiring Catholic priests to report child sex abuse learned about through the sacrament, priests insist on upholding sacred trust.
California state Sen. Jerry Hill introduced a bill to the state Legislature on Feb. 20 that would require Catholic priests to report child sex abuse learned about in the confessional. The clergy and more than 40 other professions are already mandatory reporters there, but crimes disclosed during confession have been exempt. According to Hill, “The exemption for clergy only protects the abuser and places children at further risk.” The bill is currently awaiting a hearing.
Although a similar law was passed in South Australia last October, bishops and priests there have publicly vowed never to break the seal of the confessional. Quoting canon law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “... It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason. A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity” (2490). Automatic excommunication is incurred on any priest breaking that seal.
Adding fuel to the fire, Father James E. Connell of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, a canon lawyer and advocate for victims/survivors of sexual abuse, wrote in a recent commentary that it is time to modify the Church’s seal of the confessional for abuse of minors. He acknowledged that the law against a priest revealing sins told in confession can be found at least by the 12th century but said that public penances were once imposed for grave sins. According to him, that proves......
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
charging criminal defense lawyers as criminal co-conspirators
You are obviously not Catholic. one is not forgiven if one does not truly repent and make amends. One who has committed a crime does not wipe away that sin by confessing without also making restitution or turning himself in. He will hear that from the priest in confession.
It’s what’s in the perp’s mind that matters.
He walks away thinking he’s paid the fine.
I wonder if people here, and elsewhere, realize just how radical the sitting legislature in Sacramento has become.
It would not surprise me one bit if, within five years, Catholicism as it is currently organized and practiced is outlawed in California, to be replaced by a State Church as exists in China.
And, just like China, it will be done with the acceptance of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
The priest makes it clear how it is to the confesser. The perp knows he is not forgiven if he does not follow through. Committers of crimes usually do not go to Confession if they intend to not make amends. Those that do find out only that they are not forgiven if they do not make amends. Some actually go out of confession and make their repayments and or go to the relevant authorities and there confess civilly. They would be less likely to make that trip if they did not confess to the priest.
Not Catholic so your response is very enlightening. I wonder, what is the policy on confession of ongoing or future crimes?
If you do not intend to cease a particular sort of sinful behaviour you do not receive absolution. A necessary part of the procedure is intent to amend and to not repeat the sin. Absolution is conditional in that if there is no actual intent to amend there is no absolution. If the subject lies about intent then he is committing yet another sin and negates any benefit he might get from Confession.
Also, a person can’t be absolved in advance of a sin he hasn’t actually committed yet. Someone who is planning to sin by definition is not repentent.
Actually, what I am saying is that this proposed law would punish the victims, not the perps. But, that’s probably the real agenda anyway. Democrats have no problem with pedophilia, as we’ll see very shortly.
Bears repeating.
How would it punish the victims? It isn’t Biblical.
Ever read James 5:16? Where in that scripture does it say that confession has to be to a priest?
That’s what indulgences are for.
And the Catholic Church wondered why the reformation happened?
Does the First Amendment only apply to religions you think are "Biblical"?
Also, do you seriously think your clergyman should be required to tell the police anything you tell him? Why not just have him tape everything said in his office and ship the tapes directly to the cops?
The almighty state is not my God, Is it yours?
No, that is not what indulgences are, and you clearly don’t even know what the word means.
No. i am Catholic. We aren’t allowed to read the Bible. Remember?
And just how is that relevant to the discussion about the nature of confession to a priest and the rights of the State?
Um when illegalities are being committed it can’t be applied to the first amendment as far as religions are concerned.
How will the victims confidence be broken? Do priests who commit sexual misconduct confess their sins to another priest? If so, all I’ve seen the Catholic Church do is move them around.
I’ve never told any clergy that I’ve sexually molested minors.
It is not. I am just saying the confession of sins to a priest isn’t Biblical. Why would anyone have an issue with becoming a law?
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.