THE SANCTITY OF THE CONFESSION
The forthcoming inquiry into the Catholic church’s handling of the case of a NSW priest who admitted sexually abusing boys as young as 10 has proposed that priests could be ordered to reveal crimes told to them in private confessions.
However, priests are adamant that they will not comply with such a directive.
Priest and law professor Father Frank Brennan said the move would be a restriction on religious freedom.
“I am one of the priests who, if such a law were enacted, would disobey it and if need be I would go to jail,” he said.
Writing for the Hoopla, Jesuit priest, Fr. Michael Kelly explains why…
Thank God church authorities have commissioned an inquiry to be chaired by Antony Whitlam QC into the handling of “the Fr F case” by Catholic authorities in Armidale and Parramatta in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
However, it has nothing to do with the seal of secrecy priests commit to keeping about information divulged in Confession.
The Seal of Confession is a commitment made to every penitent by every priest under sanction of his being decommissioned if he breaks it. It is an even more forceful and binding law on priests than that which psychologists and other professionals make to protect client and patient data and the commitment which has had journalists go to jail rather than reveal their sources.
Why? Because, for believers, the matter is tied up with a relationship with God.
Christians really don’t get too excited when buildings and “holy places” get desecrated. Why? Because Christians prize relationships more than things like buildings. And the primary relationship that must not be violated by any other Christian – priest or not – is the relationship someone has with God.
A priest telling the details revealed in confession amounts to such a violation.
But there are manifold ways in which a priest is informed and can divulge the information received in other contexts. And that accounting is now a matter of law. Failure to account to appropriate authorities (the police for example) is a crime.
The Catholic Church was bedeviled in Australia and victims left out to dry until the mid 1990s by its manner of handling of sex-abuse allegations. The “secrecy of the Confessional” was extended way beyond any allowable limits set by a proper respect for the Seal.
What resulted were secretive and unjust ways of handling criminal acts.
In many parts of the world it remains so. Only last year did the Vatican insist that every national bishops’ conference develop a code of conduct and legal procedures for handling such matters. They were to be delivered by the end of last month. About half of the bishops’ conferences of the world met the deadline. Australia has had effective processes operating since the mid 1990s.
However, the international result is a subset of a more pervasive cultural issue in the Church which impairs transparency and harms the delivery of any effective accountability in many areas.
What is referred to as “clericalism” – the club mentality that hides from public scrutiny any information on its members and stands by the membership come what may – is as corrosive in religion as it is in any sector of society.
It amazed me that two of the more conservative bishops in Australia have commissioned Whitlam QC, an eminent jurist and former Justice of the Federal Court, to convene this inquiry. Perhaps the inquiry – into events that occurred before effective procedures and protocols were introduced in 1995 – and the appointment of an eminently well-qualified “outsider” to hold the Church to account is a sign of a new maturity in the Church’s leadership.
It may also provide another nail in the coffin for “clericalism”.
That can only be a good thing.
RELATED ARTICLES
CELIBACY FOR PRIESTS HAS TO DIE
WHAT A PRIEST KNOWS ABOUT GRIEF
*Father Michael Kelly entered the Jesuits in 1971. After studies in philosophy, theology and social sciences, he worked as a journalist in Australia and Asia for various publications, religious and secular. He was ordained in 1984 and co-founded Albert Street Productions, a TV production company, in 1986. In 1989, he founded Jesuit Publications, publishers of Eureka Street, Australian Catholics and Madonna magazines. He is now the executive director of UCAnews.com – Asia’s Catholic news source.
20 Responses to this article
-
Carz July 19, 2012
I don’t have a problem with the seal of confession in general. If it salves the conscience of people to be ‘forgiven’ then who am I to argue. What I have a problem with is when that seal is prioritised over the well-being of those who are too young or otherwise incapable of protecting themselves against predators. Its all well and good to tell someone to go forth and sin no more but the reality is that the abuse of children is more than a sin – it is a catastrophe, and one that the Church has some power to address.
-
Sharon July 19, 2012
When you say this,
“Christians really don’t get too excited when buildings and “holy places get desecrated. Why? Because Christians prize relationships more than things like buildings. And the primary relationship that must not be violated by any other Christian – priest or not – is the relationship someone has with God.”
I can’t help wonder why people can’t unburden themselves directly to god? If that is who they have the relationship with. Why does the church insist on creating a middle man position via the confessional? And then insist they are above the law, when in fact they are nothing more than mere mortals, indulging in sin, just like the rest of us.
-
sue elliott July 19, 2012
As an atheist, I am at a loss to understand the confessional protocols.
Someone does wrong….steals something, lets say a child’s innocence, and then they go to the priest, tell ‘em all about it, say sorry and the priest says that it’s all ok cos through him, god sends forgiveness.
Isn’t that just a nice neat little package. Err / forgiveness, more erring / more forgiveness, all in secured secrecy.
So many people today are legally obligated to report any ‘suspected funny business’. I just simply do not understand how priests are not equally obligated.-
WENDY GREEN July 20, 2012
As an atheist, you will never understand Sue.
-
-
JanieJones July 19, 2012
More antiquated pseudo moralistic behaviour (bullshit) by a group of men performing rituals based on ancient mythology.
The sooner people let go of religion the better the world will be.
-
Kris July 19, 2012
My experience of the confessional is that you wouldn’t actually have too many people go in to confess to monumentous crimes (paedophillia, murder etc). For the most part, it’s the little things – swearing, taking the Lord’s name in vain, lying about the “old” dress (that came from ebay last week) etc. For the most part, I imagine hearing confession would probably be quite boring.
-
JessB July 19, 2012
Very interesting article Father Kelly, thanks. I have never been a big fan of confession, feeling that it harks back to the Middle Ages, when some priests used confession to control their parishoners.
Having said that, I love nothing more than the feeling of lightness and connectedness I have after I have confessed and performed my penance. It is amazing, and I love it.
I think it’s time for another visit to the confessional for me!
-
jo July 19, 2012
Hi Michael
yes I agree it would be catastrophic for such a rule as breaking the seal of the confessional to be introduced. It’s another example of a gross obsession of a society that’s out of control, trying to control human behaviour by making more laws. Yes the Church has handled cases badly, and yes clericalism needs to die, but the seal of the confessional is sacred and belongs to everyone, as a sacrament before God. Any priest who hears a major confession of a serious crime like that in the confessional should most likely suggest that the person go to the police as part of their penance anyway, surely? -
Catherine July 19, 2012
I do not accept that a criminal’s ‘right’ to feel forgiven is greater than a victim’s right to justice. If priests were shouting from the rooftops that they would tell such ‘sinners’ God would not forgive them until they confessed to the police, then they might get some support. It is utter rubbish they they do not have to report these disgusting crimes. Shame on every one of them.
-
WENDY GREEN July 20, 2012
But Catherine, no one has said that a criminal’s right to feel forgiven is greater than a victim’s right to justice … where did you get that from??
Do you remember the last time you were forgiven for something you did wrong and how much better you felt to be reconciled?
-
-
HQ July 19, 2012
I’d like to know why priests thought it was okay to punish me, a child, who was sexually and otherwise abused as a child by giving me increasingly long penances over many years because I was unable to stop the abuse. Not only was I being abused, I was punished for it. Not one gave me the knowledge of how to help myself or stop the abuse. Confessional privilege is a comfort only to the priest and an abuser, never the victim. The guilt I felt over the penances added to the guilt I already felt for being abused and over fifty years later, I still deal with the consequences. Priests who don’t do all they can to stop abusers and ‘save’ victims can hang their heads in shame. I don’t doubt for a minute that, should s/he turn out to be real, God will be disgusted with them.
-
WENDY GREEN July 20, 2012
You are right there, HQ!
-
-
sue bell July 20, 2012
We are a secular nation, as such we expect everyone to obey the secular laws. We stop other religions’ cultural beliefs when they clash with our laws. We do not allow child marriages nor female circumcision, from other religions, so why is the concept of the sanctity of the confessional allowed to stand. This is rule by church law not secular law, for a select few.
At all times it is the victims and their need for protection which is the most important issue. Mandatory reporting of sexual abuse should be for every body, it is our responsibility as human beings, to protect those in need, particularly the most vulnerable. If we do not, then our society is weakened.-
WENDY GREEN July 20, 2012
Sue, I think you may be getting ‘secular’ confused with atheistic …
We are not an atheistic country, we are a democratic country and our laws are based on Christian values. According to our National Census, a great majority of Australians identify themselves as Christians.
-
-
sue bell July 21, 2012
no I am not confused. We are a secular nation, that is, we have complete separation of powers, the churches have no powers, we are all the same under Australian law. It is true that our laws are originally based on English law based on Anglican
church’s values.
Many people in Australia have Christian values, true, but no matter what they believe, people must obey the laws of Australia, which are created by statute and by common practise, and not by the Anglican Church.
By claiming the confessional has special status and therefore priests do not have to obey the law and report child abusers after information gleaned in the confession, means the Catholic Church has put it’s priest above our laws.
This is an intolerable situation.
Magna Carta, states quite clearly that no one is above the law and no one, no matter how lowly in rank or how poor, is beneath the law and not subject to it’s protection.
To continue to allow religious groups , no matter who, to act outside the laws of Australia, put a lie to any sense of equality
and to our claims of the separation of powers.-
amd August 3, 2012
Absolutely correct. There is a small majority of xians in Australia, if you include all types of xians in that group (i.e. include in the same group all the religions who believe each other to be in the wrong) and also include nominal xians (those who tick xian but never go to church or in any other way practice their professed religion) and even by this wide grouping the numbers are steadily dropping with each census.
Anyway, the bottom line is that no group, or person, is above the law and religion has no place in the law.
-
