Confession and safety

[RamiC]

Two things, any opinions welcome, any ordained clergy especially welcome. I am sorry about the emotionally charged subject, I hope it is okay to post it.

We have abuse survivor's organizations in the UK who want the government to make it law that if a priest here's a confession to a crime they have to tell the police. Is it workable? Is there a way to know if it would help catch people, when if anyone did not report something because it was in formal confession, we do not know, because we do not have this law?

Church of England Synod just voted against going directly with entirely independent safeguarding supervision, another thing the survivors want. The Bishop in charge of safeguarding wanted it too, and the Archbishop of York (who is stand in for AoC right now). Instead they voted to have investigations into the legal implications of such a thing, and work towards more independent safeguarding than we have (what we have is nothing, just the law and the church supervises itself). How does it work in your country? Can a church thrive while it is answerable to an independent body over bullying and abuse?

I cannot work out if the Bishops are doing their duty in some way that some of us are missing, or if they are really just trying to keep power over things which need to change.

I want to pray for what is best for my church, but as is .

 

[RileyG]

[posting in fellowship]

I know, at least in my Church, whatever the priest hears in confession cannot, under any circumstances, be told to anyone. Period.

If anyone has any input, I'm sure it can help you. @Paidiske

 

[Paidiske]

I have lived under laws here, which state that if someone discloses child abuse in confession it must be reported.

Is it workable? Imo, yes and no. It is workable if the person disclosing is the perpetrator. Then it becomes simple; your penance is to turn yourself in to police and do whatever you can for the welfare of your victims. If you are not willing to do that, you are not truly repentant, and this is no true confession, and absolution is to be withheld.

That said, in our tradition, at least, where confession is optional rather than compulsory, I am told by people expert in working with perpetrators that the simple fact is they don't take it to confession anyway. The twisted thinking they have to hold on to, in order to keep doing it, does not allow them to see this as sinful behaviour. Certainly I have never heard such a confession, and I don't expect to.

How that would play out if it were any crime I'm really not sure. I'm also not sure that there's the same strong moral imperative to report around other forms of crime. Is it really going to make that big a difference if I have to turn in the person confessing a drug habit, for example (the sort of crime I have heard confessed)?

However, where I think it breaks down in the situation we do have, is where it is the victim disclosing. They may feel incredibly guilty, even though they are not morally culpable, thus seeking forgiveness. And yet once disclosed, whether they are ready to face reporting and all its consequences or not, mandatory reporting means they are plunged into that maelstrom. And although I am very strongly in favour of not covering up, etc, sometimes that is profoundly re-traumatising and I am not sure that it is pastorally the right thing to do. There are sometimes no good answers, here.

I did find it interesting, when we were debating changes to our canon law in synod, to allow for this reporting under secular law, that the lawyers told us that in Anglicanism there was a very old precedent going back centuries; and that was for treason. Because if a priest heard a confession of, say, treasonous conspiracy and didn't report, that priest could also be charged (and in those days, face the death penalty) for it, there was a legal exemption allowing them to report confessions of treason. Well, our canon lawyers argued, if there should be an exception to save the priest's life, how much more to save children from hideous abuse? (The lawyers did not tell us if that exception had ever actually been used!)

As for the safeguarding... we have independent safeguarding structures here. I see the reason, and I think on the whole it is necessary. But it is not without problems. To give you an example, a friend of mine was appointed to a parish where the previous priest had been removed over bullying and other breaches of the code of conduct (I don't know all the details). But because the investigation was ongoing, and it was all confidential, for something like over a year, he was not allowed to say anything about why the previous priest had been removed. And meanwhile the congregation were furious that the bishop had removed a well-loved priest, and it completely undermined their relationship with their new priest, and with their bishop, to the point that even now, years later, there is a whole bunch of the congregation who boycott services whenever the bishop is there. By the time the guy was found guilty and it could all be announced, the parish had lost a whole heap of people who had stopped listening and weren't coming back. It was pastorally an utter disaster, and it could have been different if the church had had a little more leeway on how some things were handled and communicated.

Again, no easy answers, I think. My own interactions with the independent safeguarding body have been mixed. When they're good, they're good; but when there are problems, you can be left with few good options.

 

[RamiC]

That said, in our tradition, at least, where confession is optional rather than compulsory, I am told by people expert in working with perpetrators that the simple fact is they don't take it to confession anyway. The twisted thinking they have to hold on to, in order to keep doing it, does not allow them to see this as sinful behaviour. Certainly I have never heard such a confession, and I don't expect to.

This would apply even if formal confession was compulsory, because there is no controlling what the confessor says, they would simply leave it out of the list. There is no absolution of course, it is with held by the Lord Himself if you did not declare it to repent.

I think the survivors are imagining that abusers were actually being declared not guilty by going to confession when they should be in court, as though the church is providing an escape route. The church was providing escape routes, but that was by moving people to other posts after hearing complaints about, they must now launch an investigation, confession was nothing to do with it.

However, where I think it breaks down in the situation we do have, is where it is the victim disclosing. They may feel incredibly guilty, even though they are not morally culpable, thus seeking forgiveness. And yet once disclosed, whether they are ready to face reporting and all its consequences or not, mandatory reporting means they are plunged into that maelstrom. And although I am very strongly in favour of not covering up, etc, sometimes that is profoundly re-traumatising and I am not sure that it is pastorally the right thing to do. There are sometimes no good answers, here.

This is a problem, although the law can be worded such that it only applies to perpetrators.

The combination so far seems to be victims confessing because they think it is their fault, or want freedom from feeling like it is, and the truly guilty not confessing at all anyway. I just cannot see how anyone would get caught by confessing if the law changed, because everyone would know it had happened, surely knowing that no one guilty would go?

I did find it interesting, when we were debating changes to our canon law in synod, to allow for this reporting under secular law, that the lawyers told us that in Anglicanism there was a very old precedent going back centuries; and that was for treason. Because if a priest heard a confession of, say, treasonous conspiracy and didn't report, that priest could also be charged (and in those days, face the death penalty) for it, there was a legal exemption allowing them to report confessions of treason. Well, our canon lawyers argued, if there should be an exception to save the priest's life, how much more to save children from hideous abuse? (The lawyers did not tell us if that exception had ever actually been used!)

This I can only assume was under British rule? I thought Australia themselves had never had capital for anything?

 

[Paidiske]

I think the survivors are imagining that abusers were actually being declared not guilty by going to confession when they should be in court, as though the church is providing an escape route.

I believe this did happen in some instances in the Catholic church. But our culture around confession is very different, and I am not aware of the same kind of dynamic for us.

This is a problem, although the law can be worded such that it only applies to perpetrators.

I'd argue that basically defeats the purpose. If the aim is to ensure that abuse is reported, then the source of the disclosure is not really relevant.

I just cannot see how anyone would get caught by confessing if the law changed, because everyone would know it had happened, surely knowing that no one guilty would go?

Exactly. I think the point of making this a requirement is not that it is suddenly going to actually catch abusers; it's more about the church saying we will not provide any convenient rug under which abuse can be swept.

This I can only assume was under British rule? I thought Australia themselves had never had capital for anything?

I believe it was under British rule, but we had the death penalty for some time. We last executed someone in 1967.

 

[RamiC]

I believe it was under British rule, but we had the death penalty for some time. We last executed someone in 1967.

I stand corrected.

 

[Deegie]

An interesting topic that comes up once in a while in my circles. I think requiring the reporting of any crime heard in a confession is a waste of time since people would simply stop confessing them. I would also feel an ethical obligation to inform people before their confession about my reporting requirement, just as I currently do during all pastoral counseling, making it further moot. The idea goes against both Christian tradition and legal precedent, as well as makes the church an agent of the state. I would be very, very strongly against that.

The question then becomes whether we could carve out certain crimes and keep confessional secrecy for others. First off, although this is such a weird thing to write, I don't believe child abuse is inherently the most immoral crime there is. Certainly murder, for example, is at least as bad a wrong (as if it's possible to score such things). Yet whenever we talk about this, it's always in the context of child sexual abuse. While I understand how that happens since it's what the church has most covered up, it defies logic to me. But, to return to the question, it certainly would be possible.

Then, a distinction that needs to be made is whether to require reporting only of suspected ongoing abuse as opposed to something that occurred far in the past without any indication of present or future activity. If the purpose is to protect children who cannot protect themselves, then the latter is a vast overreach. But that then requires priests to become investigators, which is untenable.

Ultimately, I come down basically where @Paidiske did: a penitent who is not willing to do their utmost to obtain care for their victims may not be truly repentant and thus the confession was not sincere. I don't know if I'm willing to make that a bright-line rule but it's certainly likely.

I also appreciate the sensitivity to the victim in her post above. I have had to tell a teenager that we need to call the authorities, despite their tears and protests. It's one of the hardest things I've done.

 

[Paidiske]

The idea goes against both Christian tradition and legal precedent, as well as makes the church an agent of the state. I would be very, very strongly against that.

It's worth noting that the OP is in England, where the church is Established and therefore the church-state relationship is completely different.

I don't really see mandatory reporting as making the church an agent of the state, but then, where I live, every single adult is legally mandated to report child abuse, so it's not like they're singling us out.

I'd be very happy not to have to deal with the state's legal paperwork to take weddings, though...

But that then requires priests to become investigators, which is untenable.

Not really. Information is disclosed, you report. Leave the investigation to the professionals.

I have had to tell a teenager that we need to call the authorities, despite their tears and protests. It's one of the hardest things I've done.

Yes. Mandatory reporting might be necessary, but it is often really harmful to the survivors. I don't have any real answers...

 

[Deegie]

Not really. Information is disclosed, you report. Leave the investigation to the professionals.

I meant in teasing out past abuse vs. ongoing or likely future abuse. Here's what I was thinking...

The whole point of reporting (as I understand it) is to protect vulnerable children who often cannot speak for themselves or face significant power differentials that reduce their agency. If a person confesses they abused a child 30 years ago, then there should be no need for mandated reporting. That now-adult can report it themselves if they choose to. However, there are still questions to be answered: does the abuser have access to children? Have they changed their ways? Answering those questions requires a priest to become an investigator and thus erring on the side of caution seems to always be warranted. That's what I meant.

 

[Paidiske]

I see what you mean, but what we're trained to do here, is simply report that information to the police and leave the rest to them.

 

[RamiC]

The idea goes against both Christian tradition and legal precedent, as well as makes the church an agent of the state. I would be very, very strongly against that.

Yes thank you to Paidiske for pointing it out, but I am in England, where we do not have the separation of powers. It is an interesting point though, because if we went with it, it would be a big difference with those in countries where that is unacceptable.

Ultimately, I come down basically where @Paidiske did: a penitent who is not willing to do their utmost to obtain care for their victims may not be truly repentant and thus the confession was not sincere. I don't know if I'm willing to make that a bright-line rule but it's certainly likely.

The clergy do this here, I believe whenever they see fit to. If they know a reason to doubt your contrition, absolution is withheld.

I have heard two Priests here say that they do not remember what they have heard after they have delivered an absolution, they both said it goes right out of their head. They were wondering what to do if the law changes, but I assume they would have to report before getting that far.

I also appreciate the sensitivity to the victim in her post above. I have had to tell a teenager that we need to call the authorities, despite their tears and protests. It's one of the hardest things I've done.

This is really a point of interest for me. If it can harm the victims, that is what must come first. And while child abuse is complicated, the very fact that attempts to get the child to safety can be more harmful is really worth thinking about. We must first do no more harm.

As the descendent of a family hit hard by murder (before I was even born) I also agree with you about murder. Third generation PTSD in me, that is some big impact crime.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am concerned about governments eavesdropping on confessionals, for purposes of political oppression (this happened in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries) and also misinterpreting what was said - for example, in the Orthodox church, the perpetrators of slander and certain types of self-harm are sometimes called murderers.

 

[RileyG]

I am concerned about governments eavesdropping on confessionals, for purposes of political oppression (this happened in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries) and also misinterpreting what was said - for example, in the Orthodox church, the perpetrators of slander and certain types of self-harm are sometimes called murderers.

I agree with you.

 

[RamiC]

I am concerned about governments eavesdropping on confessionals, for purposes of political oppression (this happened in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries) and also misinterpreting what was said - for example, in the Orthodox church, the perpetrators of slander and certain types of self-harm are sometimes called murderers.

Dare I ask, are you talking about ordained human beings telling their governments what they heard in confession?

 

[The Liturgist]

Dare I ask, are you talking about ordained human beings telling their governments what they heard in confession?

That has unfortunately happened, for instance, in the USSR and other communist states, where the KGB and its equivalents such as the East German Stasi and the Securitate of Romania would use “compromat” or threats of violence to corrupt clergy into becoming informants, but also at present the risk of electronics eavesdropping is so high that frankly, I don’t see the point for case officers of an intelligence organization to even try to turn clergy, when we can aim a laser at the stained glass windows of some confessionals, or put a discrete bug in others, and thus monitor whatever is said therein in real time.

There are counter-surveillance techniques priests can use when hearing confessions but they would require a departure from the normal setting of the liturgy, and I don’t know which churches have rubrics that allow for confessions to be held in non-standard locations, for example, or otherwise permit certain variations. It would also be inadvisable for the hierarchy to send out any kind of encyclical that would encourage clergy to use these counter-surveillance techniques, since they themselves can be mitigated; the efficacy of such methods would depend on those seeking to spy on the confessional not knowing that such techniques were in use.

To give an example of what a good idea is, Carthusian Choir Monks (monastic priests who live a semi-hermitical life, cared for by the Lay Brothers) for purposes of social interaction with each other take a weekly break from their normal silence outside of the Conventual Mass on Sunday by taking a community walk through the woods or other scenic areas around their monastery.

I believe that protecting the seal of the confessional is extremely important. I also agree with the view of @Paidiske regarding protecting the laity, and also the fact is that most paedophiles are highly unlikely to openly confess the fact. Many of them are convinced, for example, by certain ancient Greek writings and other writings from antiquity, that the harmful acts they are engaging in are actually good - it is disturbing the extent to which they can morally justify their actions.

+

By the way, on that note, I suspect a substantial number of millennials, a much higher percentage than most people think, were to some extent groomed by online content of a perverse nature in the early 2000s, before ISPs in certain countries and domain registrars got serious about taking down such illegal material and also websites which lacked such material but which were intended to groom minors. The effect of this is that they have been sexually abused to a degree by having been exposed to that kind of material. And I suspect such grooming has continued via different channels with generation Z. So we really need to pray for our youth.

Of course generation X, particularly early gen X, also were exploited heavily, and in the 1970s in the US for example the laws were such that they did not adequately treat trafficked children as victims. Fortunately this has changed. And earlier generations were probably exploited to an even greater extent. Orson Welles, the noted actor and director, in an interview with Bob Cavett, casually mentioned, as if it were entirely ordinary, incidents happening to him in his youth which would be prosecuted and viewed as severe forms of abuse at present.

+

Thus we have to pray both for those who have been victimized, and also for our clergy and for the preservation of the sanctity and integrity of the confessional.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe it was under British rule, but we had the death penalty for some time. We last executed someone in 1967.

Canada had brutal corporal punishment in their prisons into the late 1960s, and in the US this was the case in Delaware until the early 1950s, but had been abolished elsewhere long before (Delaware is an obscure state that has a tendency to get away with quite a lot that is unheard of elsewhere, for example, their separate court system for corporations, which even Nevada, regarded as a friendlier place to incorporate, except less reputable perhaps, does not have).

 

[Carl Emerson]

Two things, any opinions welcome, any ordained clergy especially welcome. I am sorry about the emotionally charged subject, I hope it is okay to post it.

We have abuse survivor's organizations in the UK who want the government to make it law that if a priest here's a confession to a crime they have to tell the police. Is it workable? Is there a way to know if it would help catch people, when if anyone did not report something because it was in formal confession, we do not know, because we do not have this law?

Church of England Synod just voted against going directly with entirely independent safeguarding supervision, another thing the survivors want. The Bishop in charge of safeguarding wanted it too, and the Archbishop of York (who is stand in for AoC right now). Instead they voted to have investigations into the legal implications of such a thing, and work towards more independent safeguarding than we have (what we have is nothing, just the law and the church supervises itself). How does it work in your country? Can a church thrive while it is answerable to an independent body over bullying and abuse?

I cannot work out if the Bishops are doing their duty in some way that some of us are missing, or if they are really just trying to keep power over things which need to change.

I want to pray for what is best for my church, but as is .

It seems that the Church is facing legal resistance to the 'laws of Love' on several fronts. Like in China we have 300M? believers fellowshipping in secret given that foundational activities of the faith are banned.

Here we are discussing a case of ultimate discretion in the stewardship of sensitive information being lost to the demand of secular 'wisdom'.

I hope we don't have to do this, but it seems sooner or later some basic activities of our faith gatherings will need to become more discrete.

Jesus said there is no law against love... I am struggling with this given that many church fathers were martyred while being motivated by the very Love of Christ.

 

[RamiC]

It seems that the Church is facing legal resistance to the 'laws of Love' on several fronts. Like in China we have 300M? believers fellowshipping in secret given that foundational activities of the faith are banned.

Here we are discussing a case of ultimate discretion in the stewardship of sensitive information being lost to the demand of secular 'wisdom'.

I hope we don't have to do this, but it seems sooner or later some basic activities of our faith gatherings will need to become more discrete.

Jesus said there is no law against love... I am struggling with this given that many church fathers were martyred while being motivated by the very Love of Christ.

Yes, we have people here who think Christianity is dying out (they have really missed the part where Christianity starts with some people believing that if they kill Jesus, they would end the trend of following Him). Christianity is smaller here than it was, but our coasts are not the edge of the planet.

While I really do sympathise with the survivors notion that somehow, someone should have protected them, therefore if any revelation is made in confession, it must become protection for the victims, it is actually unecessary and ineffective. The Priest's responsibility towards the abuser's soul is serviced perfectly well by refusing absolution unless the perpetrator admits the crime to the police. It is not worth the church becoming an agent of the state, as The Liturgist has pointed out the hazards of that in previous posts.

The whole thing is looking just like a problem I have at work right now....my boss solved a problem, and very well, but he has caused an increasing number of other problems by doing it the way he did it, and some are big problems.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, we have people here who think Christianity is dying out (they have really missed the part where Christianity starts with some people believing that if they kill Jesus, they would end the trend of following Him). Christianity is smaller here than it was, but our coasts are not the edge of the planet.

While I really do sympathise with the survivors notion that somehow, someone should have protected them, therefore if any revelation is made in confession, it must become protection for the victims, it is actually unecessary and ineffective. The Priest's responsibility towards the abuser's soul is serviced perfectly well by refusing absolution unless the perpetrator admits the crime to the police. It is not worth the church becoming an agent of the state, as The Liturgist has pointed out the hazards of that in previous posts.

The whole thing is looking just like a problem I have at work right now....my boss solved a problem, and very well, but he has caused an increasing number of other problems by doing it the way he did it, and some are big problems.

Do you think that to some extent our lack of community and wrap around love disqualifies us from being a primary care giver for wounded souls so the state wants to step in to take over the role because our track record is less than the best ?
Maybe we should rethink our priorities -foster community more - visit families - shift the focus to support - make sure the Sunday service is not the only avenue of hope for the broken?

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think it's lack of community that's meant the state has had to step in. It's been the worship of power and status, and willingness to throw victims under the bus to protect those who abuse.

If there's one idol many of our churches need to tear down, it's power and status.