quote:
If the confession is anonymously done then the priest should report what he does know.
Imagine such a scenario... Fr. Mick Dundee is hearing confessions. A man comes in and confesses he's a perv, more-so than Sandusky. Later on, once confessions are done, Fr. Mick calls the police and reports it.
"Hello, Boston PD? Yeah, some guy came into my confessional and confessed to being a pedophile."
"What's his name?"
"I dunno."
"Well, what's he look like?"
"I dunno."
"Where did he go?"
"I dunno."
"Why don't you know anything?"
"The confession was anonymous."You get the picture...
quote:
Problems do arise when religion has a ridiculous rule that protects criminals at the expense of victims. In this case of competing liberties I prefer the liberty of the victim over that of the church to protect a criminal.
You are assuming a lot here. First of all, this sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum. As slick as some predators are, they still leave a trail.
Second, there are requirements that must be met for the confession to be valid from our (Catholic) perspective. Namely, contrition needs to be present in the penitent. However in the case of abusers, they are a sick lot and unlikely able to see their abuse patterns as wrong (i.e. be sorry for the abuse, and determined to not abuse again).
Thirdly, you seem to assume that the sacrament of confession involves no verbal exchange or counsel, such as the abuser must turn himself in to the local civil authorities.
quote:
You guys are putting the church and its religious law above common sense. Just as Jesus made exceptions to work on the Sabbath I don't doubt he would make this exception for confessions.
I believe you are wrong on both accounts. I don't believe you are following the effects of this sort of law all the way through. On the surface, it's said that victims will be helped. But at what cost? Also, what kind of precedent does this set? How do you enforce such law? It's a law that is nearly impossible to enforce, such as the one that set Lawrence v. Texas in motion. Truthfully, I think this sort of legislation is a red herring. Similar laws are on the books in Ireland for abuse, murder and more. Yet, no one has been prosecuted. Rather, it only appears to be symbolic. Rather, we should be focused on what other structures we can put in place both in public life as well as within the Church to protect children.
As far as Jesus' opinion goes, I see a very limited understanding of Catholic theology regarding this sacrament, specifically the priest's role in it all. Each priest realizes he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to him, but through him to Jesus.
One final point... I maintain that this is a religious freedom issue. The seal of confession must remain inviolable (i.e. not broken). This is a contract entered into by the fact of the priest agreeing to hear a person’s confession. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the celebration of the sacrament of confession. Moreover, if the seal were to be broken under some circumstances, it would put people off the sacrament and thereby prevent them from receiving the grace that we believe they need in order to repent and amend their lives. We believe it would also, and far more importantly, obstruct the will of God for sinners to make use of the sacrament of confession and thereby enjoy eternal life. The grace of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for anyone who commits a mortal sin. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the practice of the Catholic faith (confession needed for forgiveness of mortal/serious sins -> no forgiveness of mortal sins, leads to no reception of the Eucharist and other sacraments). Some have spoken of the seal of confession as being somehow a right or privilege of the priest. Rather, we believe it is a sacred and inviolable duty that the priest must fulfill for the sake of the penitent and for the sake of God's will to redeem sinners.
