Should priests be required to break the confessional seal? (1 Viewer)

[townie]

As above.

Be interested in thoughts on this more broadly, not necessarily just in relation to child sex abuse.

And on a related note, what about other forms of privilege/confidentiality e.g lawyer-client, doctor-patient, psychologist-patient

 

[soloooooo]

For priests I think the confessional confidence should not be adhered to if they believe a child was/is in danger, and it should be a legal requirement to report this to the proper authorities. For other matters what is said should remain confidential.

Lawyer-client, doctor-patient and psychologist-patient confidentiality should remain as it is in my opinion, unless as above, the lawyer/doctor/psychologist suspects a child was/is in danger, then it should be a legal requirement for this to be reported.

 

[funkshen]

nationalise the churches

 

[soloooooo]

The catholic/christian churches needs to move back to their roots.

 

[halapenyo]

yes.

 

[Rafy]

Great to see a growing push by senior figures on both sides of politics to abolish the confessional seal:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-to-expose-abuse/story-fngburq5-1226516402135
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-14/roxon-begins-consultations-on-royal-commission/4370498

 

[funkshen]

just as lenin predicted

 

[townie]

I ( surprisingly) actually believe that the confessional seal should remain inviolable.

Firstly, because it runs the risk of casting child abuse as an issue that should trump any other considerations (which is increasingly happening anyway), my biggest concern is that it could lead to (as solo thinks should be the case) the eventual erosion of other forms of privilege, especially lawyer-client, and once it's done it won't be long before privilege of any description could be gone.

Secondly because I think that it might stop people confessing to a priest any crime, which then reduces the possibility that the offender can be urged to turn themselves in, and resolve things more peacefully. Obviously if they don't I don't think they should receive absolution.

I guess I just think that some principles are more important than crime prevention or punishment, in the same way I would never support torturing another human in order to get intelligence about a terrorist attack. And when I think of how I would act, if a friend came to me and asked for strictest confidence and told me they had abused a child I don't think I would turn them in.

/2c

 

[soloooooo]

I ( surprisingly) actually believe that the confessional seal should remain inviolable.

Firstly, because it runs the risk of casting child abuse as an issue that should trump any other considerations (which is increasingly happening anyway), my biggest concern is that it could lead to (as solo thinks should be the case) the eventual erosion of other forms of privilege, especially lawyer-client, and once it's done it won't be long before privilege of any description could be gone.

I don't see why that would be bad necessarily though. If a lawyer knows a child is in danger from his client then he has a moral (and should be legal) obligation to report it.

Secondly because I think that it might stop people confessing to a priest any crime, which then reduces the possibility that the offender can be urged to turn themselves in, and resolve things more peacefully. Obviously if they don't I don't think they should receive absolution.

I agree it might reduce people confessing serious crimes, although I would be hesitant to think that those who do confess to a priest serious crimes are more or less likely to turn themselves into the authorities.

I guess I just think that some principles are more important than crime prevention or punishment, in the same way I would never support torturing another human in order to get intelligence about a terrorist attack.

I am the exact opposite. Yes, the non violent solution is the best, but when it comes to terrorism the authorities should be able to use ANY force necessary.

And when I think of how I would act, if a friend came to me and asked for strictest confidence and told me they had abused a child I don't think I would turn them in.

I guess it would depend on the situation at hand. If the child was now > 18, then perhaps I wouldn't turn them in as what happened in the past can't be fixed so to speak. However if the child was younger (< 14 say) and still living with that person, then yes, I would turn them in.

 

[niloony]

I ( surprisingly) actually believe that the confessional seal should remain inviolable.

Firstly, because it runs the risk of casting child abuse as an issue that should trump any other considerations (which is increasingly happening anyway), my biggest concern is that it could lead to (as solo thinks should be the case) the eventual erosion of other forms of privilege, especially lawyer-client, and once it's done it won't be long before privilege of any description could be gone.

Secondly because I think that it might stop people confessing to a priest any crime, which then reduces the possibility that the offender can be urged to turn themselves in, and resolve things more peacefully. Obviously if they don't I don't think they should receive absolution.

I guess I just think that some principles are more important than crime prevention or punishment, in the same way I would never support torturing another human in order to get intelligence about a terrorist attack. And when I think of how I would act, if a friend came to me and asked for strictest confidence and told me they had abused a child I don't think I would turn them in.

/2c

I don't think a slippery slope could be argued from this. While there may be some hypocrisy in having one but not the other the Lawyer-Client confidentiality is there to maintain consistency within the legal process and I don't think abolishing the seal could be used as an excuse to overturn all confidentiality.

Other confidential relationships bring tangible outcomes within a professional setting to clients. On the point of coming fowards we have to question how often this occurs and whether confession in the minds of these people absolves significant moral trepidation for their actions. This allows them to not come forward as in their mind they've already come forwards to god.

The priest-confessor relationship is merely a friend-friend relationship in my eyes. Even though you might not like telling on a friend the law shouldn't give you special privilege.

Also on tortue it doesn't align with our legal system nor has it been found to give accurate intelligence so I don't think it's relevant to this arguement. Just to put me at odds with Soloooo to not make this an ethical clash with ethical arguement .

 

[enoilgam]

I am very much pro-police and pro-prosecution, but I dont think the seal should be broken. It is a violation of a persons right against self-incrimination because they are telling the priest in the belief that they are covered by this privilege. I think child abuse, especially by people in a position of power is one of the worst crimes in society and as much as I want these guys to fry, you cant violate that right against self-incrimination in this case.

Also townie, if a mate of mine confessed something like that to me - I would tell the cops instantly. I wouldnt want to have any association with such a person at all.

EDIT: However, if the person presents a danger then the seal should be broken. I'm pretty sure that under the law, this applies to all types of privilege (lawyer - client, doctor - patient), as they must warn authorities if they know someone presents a danger or is going to break the law (i.e. a patient tells his psychologist that he is going to kill someone).

 

[Blue Suede]

In terms of doc/patient and psych/client confidentiality, they have a legal requirement to break confidentiality if the person exhibits signs of serious danger to self or others, and if they get presented with a warrant, they MUST give over all files etc relating to that person.

 

[funkshen]

these priests are already well known for breaking seals. i don't see the problem.

 

[resourceater]

No just because the confessional seal is broken, I don't think this will lead to a dissolution in all confidentiality predicated professions. Those which are, ahem, more "important" than church confessions will remain confidential and rightly so.

And to whomever above, lawyer confidentiality is extremely important! I mean, of course, were a child in danger it would be great if a lawyer could report it but if we made it up to the lawyer's discretion, I feel as if a lot of bad information would come through...

 

[alstah]

"Canon law prohibits a priest from revealing a confession even under the threat of his own death. Should we expect him to buckle under the threat of a prison sentence? Here it's essential to understand that any priest who violates the confessional seal faces excommunication.
That might mean nothing to you. You might even see this as the threat that underpins a dangerous fairytale. But you are not the one hearing the confession. What matters is what this means to priests and, in Catholic terms, excommunication is as serious as it gets - far more serious than any prison sentence. This leaves us searching for a very strange creature indeed: someone devoted enough to enter the priesthood, but not devoted enough to care about eternal damnation. And we need lots of them. We're betting on a team of rogue priests. That doesn't sound like a plan to me."

^ An interesting article on the subject matter in SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...he-sanctity-of-confession-20121115-29enl.html

IMO, confession is central to the Catholic belief in penance, reconciliation and forgiveness - no matter how horrible the sin is. If we take away the guaranteed right of confidentiality to confessions, there's a very strong chance that priests or others will not go to confession, it'd be as good as going to the police then. So what's the point of breaking away the seal in the first place?

 

[kaz1]

You know what will reduce the amount of sexual abuse among catholic priests?

Allow then to marry and fuck women consensually so they don't fuck little kiddies in desperation.

 

[funkshen]

You know what will reduce the amount of sexual abuse among catholic priests?

Allow then to marry and fuck women consensually so they don't fuck little kiddies in desperation.

there is literally no evidence that allowing catholic priests to marry would do much to stop them diddling kids. the epidemic of child abuse in the catholic church has far more to do with the church as an institution; its power, its lack of accountability and transparency, so on and so forth. given that the institution won't change, what will stem the tide of child abuse is (and has been) public outrage and scrutiny.

 

[Lolsmith]

Isn't there legal obligations about client/patient confidentiality stating that they're legally obligated to not disclose particular information unless subpoena'd (or have I been watching too much Law and Order)

Is the confessional seal protected similarly or is it just a moral obligation and personal choice?

 

[funkshen]

Isn't there legal obligations about client/patient confidentiality stating that they're legally obligated to not disclose particular information unless subpoena'd (or have I been watching too much Law and Order)

yes, the privacy act is a federal act that regulates the lawyer-client/physician-patient confidentiality. each state also has its own laws e.g. health standards. and, most importantly, that which giveth taketh away - the law bestows the privilege of confidentiality but also revokes it a number of circumstances; for instance, why should someone in car accident have their toxicology report (i.e. a relationship between doctor and patient) held in confidence when it clearly pertains to the potential criminal liability of the accident.

Is the confessional seal protected similarly or is it just a moral obligation and personal choice?

no, its a moral obligation and personal choice. the sanctity of the confessional seal is but another privilege unduly rewarded to religious officials in our secular society. the priest might be held accountable to the canon law of the catholic church, but that isn't the concern of our government.

 

[Lolsmith]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I don't really like coercion in the form of forced testimony (regardless of any sort of moral or ethical confidentiality that pertains to your job) but without this, there leaves pretty large gaps in the judicial system in order to prosecute criminals. That being said, though, this isn't always bad because there are some pretty fucking dumb laws that I would like people to go free for.

I would say that yes they should be required to break it, if others are treated in the same fashion. Priests shouldn't be afforded special privilege in this regard.