The trend of "a rising number of mandatory reporting laws around the world" is, I have to suspect, partly a consequence of the aggressive atheism which is increasingly openly brandished by elites, such as elected officials (or possibly IICSA panel members). But, undoubtedly, another major factor is the Church's loss of moral authority as a consequence of its serial and continuing clergy sex abuse scandals.
Exactly how is a priest supposed to report suspected sexual abuse if the penitent confesses behind a screen?
The only way I can see a conviction working out is if the priest either doesn't use a regular confessional, or the "penitent" deliberately mentions their name and makes a recording of the conversation, which sounds a lot more like entrapment, in a scenario that only works on Catholics.
It would make for a great argument to restore anonymity to confession. I absolutely hate the therapistesque, face-to-face, box of tissues-style that has become the default where I’m from.
The basilica has a number of beautiful confessionals, but they’re only used during the larger penitential evenings held in Lent and Advent. Otherwise, you’re in the “Reconciliation Room”. 🤮
I have great appreciation for my typical Confessional, which is well stocked with kneeler, crucifix, Act of Contrition, tissue box, trash can, and is large and well-lit... and is practically a separate room from the priest's, with a "window" between that is thoroughly screened. There's a lot to be said for ensuring that everything that might be needed is supplied, and that the environment is conducive to calm, so the possible anxieties are reduced to just the crux of the matter. "Conducive to calm" includes a means of ensuring anonymity and privacy.
I have yet to figure out why face-to-face is supposed to make it easier. I avoid it like the plague (thankfully, successfully for a decade or so) and have a Sacred Heart holy card to help remind me of Who, exactly, is on the business end of the operation.
It's not a therapy session. It's an appointment with the Divine Physician, who is there to heal you. The gentlest priests I've ever Confessed to, were behind those screens. They were also the only priests who've ever asked follow-up questions to ensure that they were getting an accurate understanding - something that is necessary for healing, and not necessary for warm fuzzy feelings.
1.) For the sake of peoples' peace of mind, these laws that "threaten the seal" almost never have a practical situation in which they could feasibly be applied. Seriously, what am I going to do? Hear a Confession, absolve the penitent, run to the sacristy, grab my phone, call the police, and try to apprehend the perp? Yeah right.
2.) On a less-facetious note... I've found in my [admittedly few] years as a priest that the one thing that unites every priest of every stripe--from the most hardened traditionalist to dudes who only own Hawaiian shirts--is the sacrosanct nature of the Seal of Confession. It's actually quite edifying.
The UK really truly is a lost cause in so many ways, totally beyond saving. At this point, it seems clear there is no longer a solid assurance that there can be successful recourse to Parliament, or the local Councils, or the Police, or the various Ministries of the UK Gov't for something like this. "Confession Reporting Laws" like this are admittedly dodgy and impractical to monitor or enforce, but the principle here transcends the particulars.
If we live in a "New Apostolic Age" then we need to accept the fact that it will likewise come with the persecution that accompanied the original. Attempting to cleverly litigate ourselves out of the Way of the Cross is not sustainable in the long run.
What graces would flow from Our Triumphal Lord to his faithful if +Nichols and +McMahon would get up and make this public statement:
"We'd like this bill not to pass, but we know our opinion matters little, and it'll probably pass anyways. So be it. We will not obey the law. Me and my brother bishops and all the priests in the UK will defy the law both in principle and in practice. The Sacrament is inviolable."
I've always suspected these laws are written by someone who has never been to confession. The only identifying thing we announce is that we're a sinner, which isn't helpful to the police other than ruling out two people who have walked the earth.. If you did want to use a name, you could easily use a pseudonym, perhaps using the name of your hated enemy down the street and get him/her in trouble. And wouldn't churches get around this by ending face-to-face confession? You can't go to the police station and say, "A gentleman with a nasally voice said he was George Clooney." All of this simply seems ridiculous to me. What am I missing with these legal efforts?
What you are missing, Nathan, is the galactic stupidity of much of the British ruling class. The Covid epidemic particularly exposed it of course, but it inevitably pops out on numerous occasions.
My favourite, among countless examples, was the day that Matt Hancock, the Health Minister, got extra angry about our alleged failure to obey the idiotic lockdown rules. He declared that he would lock us up 24/7 unless we were more compliant. How he proposed to do this without the collapse of society and mass deaths was never explained.
Matt was then caught breaking the lockdown rules to meet his mistress and cheat on his wife. He was later seen in his new career on reality TV eating bugs in the Australian jungle.
It seems equally obvious to me that perpetrators of this particular sin would just stop confessing it. That either means they stop going to confession altogether, or it means they go to confession consciously withholding grave sin. In either case, they stay in their sins--all of them, this one included, which is in no way an improvement.
Is there any evidence that perpetrators even confess this? There have been enough people sent to prison for CSA and I’ve never read a story where someone admitted to confessing a crime let alone an ongoing one. Of course we’d only know if they admitted it but it’s so weird how many governments seem to think this is a risk with no evidence.
As a priest, Ashley, I can tell you that people confess everything. It is one of the greatest honors of my life that the people place such complete trust in my fidelity to the seal that they will tell me what they won't tell anyone else.
This is why laws like these are meaningless. If someone walked into my confessional, gave me his (her) name, address, phone number and biometric data and confessed ANYTHING, I would never reveal it.
As several of my brother priests have said, "Send me to prison, when I die, I'll be good with Jesus."
I agree with the commentators. How is a priest supposed to denounce a anonymous guy in the confessional whom he cannot see? This proposal, among much else, exposes the abysmal standard of public administration in the UK. But the frenzy around any discussion of child abuse confuses clear thinking.
Are all lawyers expected to denounce their clients who reveal such offences? Are all vicars, imams, rabbis etc expected to denounce people who have approached them for spiritual help? They may not have a sacrament seal around their conversations. But morally I think that they are also entitled to legal protection. Are children going to be safer if their abuser has nowhere to turn?
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the 1955 Hitchcock thriller "I confess". Hitchcock went to the same school as the late Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster. It almost begs for a remake where a priest is falsely suspected of child abuse and can save himself only by breaching the seal.
Oh dear, well… Cardinals wear Red for reason; get ready to shed your blood for Him and for His sheep. Ultimately a detente with atheistic civil approaches, does not ever work. Might as well step
Up and say, “No,” Bishops and Cardinals. Protect your flock from the real wolves.
In a UK that currently gives a pass to Sharia-type law behaviors. And what we call pedophilia is winked-at by Islamic practice, albeit hidden.
As others have noted, anonymous confession would appear to nullify this proposed law. However, that is a misdirection. Would not the truly penitent child abuser reconcile with his victims and the law as well? Is that not what Christ indicated in the Gospel? If I steal a car and later regret it do I go to confession and keep the car? No, I have to return the car too! (So, why are these proposed laws only targeted at sexual predators, not all lawbreakers?)
The trend of "a rising number of mandatory reporting laws around the world" is, I have to suspect, partly a consequence of the aggressive atheism which is increasingly openly brandished by elites, such as elected officials (or possibly IICSA panel members). But, undoubtedly, another major factor is the Church's loss of moral authority as a consequence of its serial and continuing clergy sex abuse scandals.
Exactly how is a priest supposed to report suspected sexual abuse if the penitent confesses behind a screen?
The only way I can see a conviction working out is if the priest either doesn't use a regular confessional, or the "penitent" deliberately mentions their name and makes a recording of the conversation, which sounds a lot more like entrapment, in a scenario that only works on Catholics.
It would make for a great argument to restore anonymity to confession. I absolutely hate the therapistesque, face-to-face, box of tissues-style that has become the default where I’m from.
The basilica has a number of beautiful confessionals, but they’re only used during the larger penitential evenings held in Lent and Advent. Otherwise, you’re in the “Reconciliation Room”. 🤮
I have great appreciation for my typical Confessional, which is well stocked with kneeler, crucifix, Act of Contrition, tissue box, trash can, and is large and well-lit... and is practically a separate room from the priest's, with a "window" between that is thoroughly screened. There's a lot to be said for ensuring that everything that might be needed is supplied, and that the environment is conducive to calm, so the possible anxieties are reduced to just the crux of the matter. "Conducive to calm" includes a means of ensuring anonymity and privacy.
I have yet to figure out why face-to-face is supposed to make it easier. I avoid it like the plague (thankfully, successfully for a decade or so) and have a Sacred Heart holy card to help remind me of Who, exactly, is on the business end of the operation.
It's not a therapy session. It's an appointment with the Divine Physician, who is there to heal you. The gentlest priests I've ever Confessed to, were behind those screens. They were also the only priests who've ever asked follow-up questions to ensure that they were getting an accurate understanding - something that is necessary for healing, and not necessary for warm fuzzy feelings.
1.) For the sake of peoples' peace of mind, these laws that "threaten the seal" almost never have a practical situation in which they could feasibly be applied. Seriously, what am I going to do? Hear a Confession, absolve the penitent, run to the sacristy, grab my phone, call the police, and try to apprehend the perp? Yeah right.
2.) On a less-facetious note... I've found in my [admittedly few] years as a priest that the one thing that unites every priest of every stripe--from the most hardened traditionalist to dudes who only own Hawaiian shirts--is the sacrosanct nature of the Seal of Confession. It's actually quite edifying.
The UK really truly is a lost cause in so many ways, totally beyond saving. At this point, it seems clear there is no longer a solid assurance that there can be successful recourse to Parliament, or the local Councils, or the Police, or the various Ministries of the UK Gov't for something like this. "Confession Reporting Laws" like this are admittedly dodgy and impractical to monitor or enforce, but the principle here transcends the particulars.
If we live in a "New Apostolic Age" then we need to accept the fact that it will likewise come with the persecution that accompanied the original. Attempting to cleverly litigate ourselves out of the Way of the Cross is not sustainable in the long run.
What graces would flow from Our Triumphal Lord to his faithful if +Nichols and +McMahon would get up and make this public statement:
"We'd like this bill not to pass, but we know our opinion matters little, and it'll probably pass anyways. So be it. We will not obey the law. Me and my brother bishops and all the priests in the UK will defy the law both in principle and in practice. The Sacrament is inviolable."
I've always suspected these laws are written by someone who has never been to confession. The only identifying thing we announce is that we're a sinner, which isn't helpful to the police other than ruling out two people who have walked the earth.. If you did want to use a name, you could easily use a pseudonym, perhaps using the name of your hated enemy down the street and get him/her in trouble. And wouldn't churches get around this by ending face-to-face confession? You can't go to the police station and say, "A gentleman with a nasally voice said he was George Clooney." All of this simply seems ridiculous to me. What am I missing with these legal efforts?
What you are missing, Nathan, is the galactic stupidity of much of the British ruling class. The Covid epidemic particularly exposed it of course, but it inevitably pops out on numerous occasions.
My favourite, among countless examples, was the day that Matt Hancock, the Health Minister, got extra angry about our alleged failure to obey the idiotic lockdown rules. He declared that he would lock us up 24/7 unless we were more compliant. How he proposed to do this without the collapse of society and mass deaths was never explained.
Matt was then caught breaking the lockdown rules to meet his mistress and cheat on his wife. He was later seen in his new career on reality TV eating bugs in the Australian jungle.
It seems equally obvious to me that perpetrators of this particular sin would just stop confessing it. That either means they stop going to confession altogether, or it means they go to confession consciously withholding grave sin. In either case, they stay in their sins--all of them, this one included, which is in no way an improvement.
Is there any evidence that perpetrators even confess this? There have been enough people sent to prison for CSA and I’ve never read a story where someone admitted to confessing a crime let alone an ongoing one. Of course we’d only know if they admitted it but it’s so weird how many governments seem to think this is a risk with no evidence.
As a priest, Ashley, I can tell you that people confess everything. It is one of the greatest honors of my life that the people place such complete trust in my fidelity to the seal that they will tell me what they won't tell anyone else.
This is why laws like these are meaningless. If someone walked into my confessional, gave me his (her) name, address, phone number and biometric data and confessed ANYTHING, I would never reveal it.
As several of my brother priests have said, "Send me to prison, when I die, I'll be good with Jesus."
I agree with the commentators. How is a priest supposed to denounce a anonymous guy in the confessional whom he cannot see? This proposal, among much else, exposes the abysmal standard of public administration in the UK. But the frenzy around any discussion of child abuse confuses clear thinking.
Are all lawyers expected to denounce their clients who reveal such offences? Are all vicars, imams, rabbis etc expected to denounce people who have approached them for spiritual help? They may not have a sacrament seal around their conversations. But morally I think that they are also entitled to legal protection. Are children going to be safer if their abuser has nowhere to turn?
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the 1955 Hitchcock thriller "I confess". Hitchcock went to the same school as the late Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster. It almost begs for a remake where a priest is falsely suspected of child abuse and can save himself only by breaching the seal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_(film)
Only hear confessions using a screen….
"Paton, who is a professor of industrial economics...."
Gee, being in the same field, it gives me a lot more confidence in commenting on Catholic matters. :)
Oh dear, well… Cardinals wear Red for reason; get ready to shed your blood for Him and for His sheep. Ultimately a detente with atheistic civil approaches, does not ever work. Might as well step
Up and say, “No,” Bishops and Cardinals. Protect your flock from the real wolves.
In a UK that currently gives a pass to Sharia-type law behaviors. And what we call pedophilia is winked-at by Islamic practice, albeit hidden.
As others have noted, anonymous confession would appear to nullify this proposed law. However, that is a misdirection. Would not the truly penitent child abuser reconcile with his victims and the law as well? Is that not what Christ indicated in the Gospel? If I steal a car and later regret it do I go to confession and keep the car? No, I have to return the car too! (So, why are these proposed laws only targeted at sexual predators, not all lawbreakers?)