What is said in a Catholic confessional stays in the Catholic confessional.
Should it?
Many professionals (medical, mental health, educational) are, in many jurisdictions, required by law to report behaviors such as the sexual assault of children.
Not so, currently, for Catholic priests when hearing a confession. Should they be held to the same ethical standard, or should the centuries long tradition of privacy of the confessional be respected?
Any system of forgiveness that maintains the possibility of an adherent thinking, “I can rape the shit out of my wife (or kick the dog or embezzle or whatever else) and I’ll just run it by the priest later and I’m good to go” is a system that potentially leads to more and more wrongs done with little sense of accountability, IMHO.
I’d be interested in the ways such a Ring of Gyges is ultimately good for a society, as I haven’t come up with any at the moment.
Priests creep me out. How many other people, once you know their profession, can you know with near certainty that they wouldn’t report a pedophile?
I’m actually 50:50 on it.
As a nurse (and also when I was a medic), I’m a mandated reporter, and it’s awful that someone could confess sexually abusing a child and be obligated to keep silent.
Priests aren’t trained to be criminal investigators, and an issue (with the American judicial system, although I’m sure it’s different in other countries) with such testimony in court is that hearsay is usually not admissible, except under certain rare circumstances.
There are many instances where priests have convinced criminals to turn themselves in . . . so we must consider this as well.
I consider the seal of confession to be similar to doctor-patient confidentiality.
In any case, I see both sides of the issue.
Please don’t misinterpret my position to think that I believe pedophiles should get a pass, or that I’m soft on violent criminals.
The coin has to sides. One the one side, if done correctly, a confessional could work as a low-level and very basic mental health service, with all the stash and rituals and pretend magic involved with religion-based stuff. It would not be perfect, but giving a segment of the population some very low-level access to someone to talk to, to confide in, to release some “thought pressure” could be very healthy. Especially in societies where access to mental health care could be scarce. Plus, it can take the pressure off real doctors, who can get fewer patients that basically just need someone to talk to about very personal stuff. Just like confiding in a trusted friend. It certainly has some merit. So on those grounds, I am in favour of treating such confessionals on more or less equal terms as patient/doctor confidentiality.
On the other side, I see absolutely no reason at all that confessional confidentiality should be so absurdly more strict than patient/doctor confidentiality. If doctors, nurses, and hospitals are required to report cases involving sexual or other types of abuse of children, cases of neglected care of children, etc., then there is no reason catholic priests should be excempt. After all, the confessional is something the church itself introduced, not something that was ordered directly by their sky daddy(*).
In conclusion, I am in favor of confessional confidentiality, up to a point. Making it similar to a patient/doctor confidentiality regime would in my opinion be a suitable tradeoof between needed confidentiality and the need to report serious things, like sexual abuse of children.
(*) which they in any case haven’t proven to exist
In short, no. As you say it implies that someone can commit a crime knowing full well that after they seek forgiveness from a priest, they are free and clear. Moreover, anyone deliberately shielding them (and religion is no excuse) should be treated the same as anyone else who does something similar.
UK Atheist
From an interview on NPR, Jesuit Fr. Bruce Morrill said, “The church sees its mission as an agent of God’s judgment and mercy to do everything it can to save souls,” he said. “The church’s responsibility is to make it as available as possible for a soul to be saved. If the state requires this disclosure, then this basically inhibits or makes it very difficult for people to trust that they could confess this, and in the process do what they can for their salvation.”
I wasn’t able to find any actual data supporting the assertion that the sanctity of the confessional results in a net benefit for society.
Can’t their salvation be guaranteed by forgiveness and their soul saved in addition to protecting the community from these criminals?
I think this is an unconscionable loophole designed by and for predators and should be abolished.
I think the key issue is that the confessional is supposed to be so someone can get absolution for their sins. If those sins involve illegal acts, then the acts are supposed to be reported. It’s that way for everyone else. It should be that way for clergy.
The abuse of children should be beyond the realm of confidentiality - not just for religious people, but for doctors, nurses, lawyers, too! The only exception should be a lawyer in the process of defending his client for a charge of abuse of children.
I agree and what’s more, I’d be interested in what supports the notions behind the entire rationale of F. Merrill’s argument.
In other words, claims about the existence of souls and this god thing.
Without those being demonstrated, the game is up on the piffle he’s just treated his audience to about the sanctity of unconditional silence, IMHO.
On a lighter note, this meme pretty much exposes the absurdity of this business …
