Moral Obligation To Report Abuse?

[Socrates]

You mean sexual? Of course! I think Catholics in the past have had a shady past with reporting this sort of stuff. A priest from my school who was known to meddle in this sort of thing for 20 + years, even by the staff of the school, has been relocated after someone came out and spoke. 

 

Lots of people have had a shady past with reporting abuse.  Studies show that rates of sexual abuse are in fact higher among protestant ministers, and much higher in the public school system, though you don't hear the same kind of moral outcry in the media and the general public.

 

Of course, that does not at all minimize the evil of sexual abuse by priests.  I think the violation of the holiness of their office makes it all the more evil and vile.  Even one case of abuse is one too many.

 

There is a huge double standard in reporting this stuff, though.

 

Sorry, but isn't this the same logic used by those who did not report priests and others who ended up being molesters? True, the reputation of the person will suffer but if the investigation finds nothing on him, then the accuser faces the ultimate loss, not the accused. 

 

Falsely accused priests have had their lives and careers permanently ruined, even after the courts found them completely innocent.  There are plenty of hateful people who are eager to believe priests are sexual abusers, regardless of the evidence.

 

I'm not saying that accusations should not be investigated, but the evil done by bearing false witness is very severe.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Lots of people have had a shady past with reporting abuse.  Studies show that rates of sexual abuse are in fact higher among protestant ministers, and much higher in the public school system, though you don't hear the same kind of moral outcry in the media and the general public.

 

Of course, that does not at all minimize the evil of sexual abuse by priests.  I think the violation of the holiness of their office makes it all the more evil and vile.  Even one case of abuse is one too many.

 

There is a huge double standard in reporting this stuff, though.

 

 

Falsely accused priests have had their lives and careers permanently ruined, even after the courts found them completely innocent.  There are plenty of hateful people who are eager to believe priests are sexual abusers, regardless of the evidence.

 

I'm not saying that accusations should not be investigated, but the evil done by bearing false witness is very severe.

 I don't think defending the Church by saying "other people do it too" works anymore, though. The fact that the people high up actually tried to cover up some of these cases or fix them by moving the priest around is mind boggling. However, you do make good points. The wrongly accused suffer for the rest of their lives. I think that a community of Catholics would be more than willing to accept that a priest was wrongly accused if that was truly the case. I tend to find that devout Catholics won't believe anything that might cast a negative light on their parish priest (even if it's completely true... I have two funny stories related to this...). 

Edited April 20, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Regardless, my argument falls short of the impact at large. Outside of his small community, he will be ostracized. 

[Socrates]

 I don't think defending the Church by saying "other people do it too" works anymore, though. The fact that the people high up actually tried to cover up some of these cases or fix them by moving the priest around is mind boggling. However, you do make good points. The wrongly accused suffer for the rest of their lives. I think that a community of Catholics would be more than willing to accept that a priest was wrongly accused if that was truly the case. I tend to find that devout Catholics won't believe anything that might cast a negative light on their parish priest (even if it's completely true... I have two funny stories related to this...). 

 

I don't defend or excuse for a second priests who engaged in sexual misconduct, or bishops who cover up their actions.

 

I'm just pointing out that this wasn't some problem unique to the Catholic Church, as many make it to be.

 

Clergy are as capable of sin as anyone else, and can betray Christ just as Judas did.  Anyone who engages in sexual abuse is acting directly contrary to the teachings of the Church - they're hypocrites. who will be judged especially harshly.

 

Also, i don't think your opinion that Catholics will always believe the best about their pastor is true across the board.  I've known plenty of Catholics who seem to be always trying to find fault with their pastor.  Unfortunately, Catholic parishes are subject to the same internal rivalries, jealousy, and strife as other groups of people.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

Also, i don't think your opinion that Catholics will always believe the best about their pastor is true across the board.  I've known plenty of Catholics who seem to be always trying to find fault with their pastor.  Unfortunately, Catholic parishes are subject to the same internal rivalries, jealousy, and strife as other groups of people.

Come to think of it, you are right. When i volunteered for confirmation classes, many of the parents would have fallen into that category. The devout Catholics involved in the Church didn't seem to be like this at all, though. 

Edited April 20, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[TheLordsSouljah]

What if they make you pinky promise?
No, I think it's still necessary to report it. It's the reason why people end up reporting cases 20 years after they happen and nothing gets done about it. 

I actually meant more for the cases where they ask not to say anything for very strong reasons. It's not a 'pinky promise'. It might be about keeping them safe. Stopping them losing a job. It might just be way too painful at the time to talk about it. Stuff like that. I'm speaking from experience with talking to close friends. I can only try to convince them that it is the right way out, but some can't bear to re-live the memories/ go through court cases, etc.

[Socrates]

Come to think of it, you are right. When i volunteered for confirmation classes, many of the parents would have fallen into that category. The devout Catholics involved in the Church didn't seem to be like this at all, though. 

 

It depends.  Not all parishes are the same.  There are also some "devout" holy rollers who think they are more Catholic than the Pope, and that most priests and bishops are evil or wrong.  All types out there.

[BarbTherese]

I haven't read all posts.  I do think that anyone who abuses and it comes to the attention of The Church must be reported to the police.  It is a criminal offence and we are called to obey the laws of the land.  If it comes to the attention of a priest in confession, I believe he can make absolution conditional on the penitent reporting the matter to the police and as penance.  If this is correct and becomes part of Catholic general knowledge and our CAtholic culture (by 'ramming it consistently down our throats', then confessing without any intention of reporting the matter to the police makes confession invalid, if his penance is to report to the police and absolution condtional only that he does.  After all, too, if we dont perform our penance deliberately, it renders Confession invalid ........... I think.

I do think that early ithe piece of The Church becoming aware of priest abusers, they may not have been aware that abusers will most often offend again and so shifted abusing priests around.  And again most unwisely they were trying to protect The Church.  If such a priest was remorseful, then there is that Gospel duty of forgiveness - and unwisely but perhaps not fully understanding an abuser most likely will re-offend, these priests were forgiven, retained their priesthood and were sent elsewhere in the very wrong conclusion that they were indeed sorry and would never do it again (and now we know tjhey did re-offended and sometimes terrible serial offences - and we now know all theoretical conclusions on the part of our heirarchy was a complete fool's paradise.  They neither protected The Church, in fact their incorrect conclusion has bought tremendous scandal to The Church and a crisis of Faith in many Catholics - what they have done in fact is not protected The Church at all rather opened it to very serious justified criticism and scandal, a crisis of Faith amongst many Catholics, even loss of Faith, and focused media attention.

 

It also highlights a real problem in The Church.  Where is our Faith invested?  In Jesus and His Gospel, or in The Church as a human functioning institution - in the human fallible, faulted, weak human beings in our heirarchy who do run the human institution on the human institutional administration level (and not included in infallibality in Faith and Morals).  This is  a very real crisis crying for focused and vital attention by The Church,  It is a very very serious problem and a crisis evident through these scandals amongst many Catholics indeed - a crisis of Faith.

 

Confession adn a very important Sacrament is falling right off - not through laziness, but a completely misunderstanding of sin and the Sacrament.  Quite a few Catholic I know feel Confession is not necessary and one can go to God without any sort of intermediary.  This is clearly a protestant belief seeping into Catholcisim  In Confession we are speaking to Jesus (through the priest).

 

"[2] Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord:

I will sing to my God as long as I shall be.

Put not your trust in princes:

[3] In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation"

 

(Psalm l45 - Douay Rheims Translation)

 

[BarbTherese]

Most of those abused were from Catholic homes and the abusing priest in a postion of great trust. Some children were students, others altar boys and others even disabled in Catholic care homes run by brothers. Some simply children in a Catholic home.

 

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me,

it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck,

and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew Chapter 18:16

 

Pope Benedcit wrote nolt long ago that the only thing - the only thing - that Catholics have to fear is the sins in The Church. Going by the above quote from Mattjhe, we should all be terrified and doing ardent and sincere penance for what has happened. For just as the virtue of one belongs to the whole Church (and that means all members), so do the sins of the one belong to the whole Church and all members. What has happened is terrible indeed and we are warned as in Matthew above. It is no use saying, I didn't do it - I am innocent of such a crime. I am not an abuser and not heirarchy, it is their fault. We are the Mystical Body of Christ militant on earth - united to those suffering in Purgatory and iin glory in Heaven. We are, as ST Paul pointed out, members of each other.  I do ask myself, what is happening in The Church that The Lord has allowed such terrible things to happen? (Theology of the Permissive Will of God as laid out in the CCC).

 

[BarbTherese]

I had an occasion, sent by nuns, to go to Confession after being raped at 15 and a quite innocent young girl and a virgin.  It was the weirdest experince in a Passionist Monastery where the nuns sent me.  I began to think that I had really sinned someow and perhaps seriously so.  Why I had to go to Confession, otherwise beats me!  I was shown into an office at the monastery.  FAther asked me intimate details of what had happend, really intimate details which shocked me - and I was talking to him over his desk, not in a Confessional.  I was too young, innocent and naive, terrified in fact, to query what was happening. After all he was a priest and I totally trusted him.  When he was finished with all the intrusive, intimate and highly embarrasing questions wanting every single little detail including asking me "Did............happen?" several times - wanting all of what happened from beginning to end, he instructed me to go down to the large church'chapel and I woudl find a confessional there with the red light on.  He instructed to simply state that I had spoken to FR .......... and the priest in Confession would give me absolution.  That is exactly what happened.  Years later, I wondered if the priest behind the desk was 'getting his rocks off'' by asking me such intimate questions and one's that highly embrarrassed me and in every single little detail his questions pursued of what had happened.  Why did the priest int he Confessional seem to understand when I said I had spoken with Fr............... and then simply give me a penance and absolution.  Later years it seems to me, he must have known what was going on in the office with Fr.................

Interestingly, the nuns sent me there by cab.  It was quite a way from my home - 2 buses and a good 2hrs travel, but no arrangements for a taxi to take me home.  In the bottom of my bag I found enough money for buses to get home and very distressed and confused.

I am 67yrs now and then 15, so this would have been 52 yrs ago now.

Would I now go to the Archbishop about it.  No jolly way!  I think what happened was very wrong and very questionable - but I dont want to be turned inside out, treated as suspect, when Father did not abuse me physically in any way.  Just left me very confused and upset, emotionally and spiritually bashed about.

Edited April 24, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Lil Red]

i don't think priests can "make absolution conditional on the penitent reporting the matter to the police and as penance." :unsure: 

[BarbTherese]

New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

 

 

"The doctrine commonly received is that whenever conditional absolution willsafeguard the holiness and dignity of the Sacramentit may be employed, or whenever the spiritualneed of the penitent is clear, but at the same time dispositions necessary for the valid reception of the Sacramentare in doubt, then it would be a mercy to impart absolution even if under condition."

 

New Advent I have been told is not always accurate - and I am no theologian, but from the above it seems that conditional absolution could be given - but Catholic Aswers Forums thinks differently

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-absolution-be-withheld-from-a-murderer-until-he-agrees-to-give-himself-up-to-auth

 

Can absolution be withheld from a murderer until he agrees to give himself up to authorities?
Answer

Absolutely not. A priest may withhold absolution from a murderer if he has reason to believe that the penitent is insincere. He also may assign the penitent to atone for his sin by helping those he has harmed, anonymously if necessary. For example, if the victim was a husband and father, the priest may direct the penitent to contribute to the support of the widow and children. In order to avoid revealing the murderer’s identity, the support may be given through the mediation of the parish’s charitable funds. The priest also may encourage the penitent to turn himself in to authorities. But he may not condition absolution upon the murderer’s confession to civil authorities. No one—not even the priest—can require an action that would reveal to outsiders the contents of his sacramental confession and thus violate the seal of the confessional.

 

I must admit, I dont quite understand what the above states.  If conditional absolution is given that the person reports their crime to the police, I dont see how it breaks the seal of Confession which is binding on the priest only not to reveal confession content.  It becomes a free act of choice by the penitent to reavel if so chosen.  If he truly wants God's forgiveness under a conditional penance to confess to authorities, then he should report himself/herself to the police confessing the crime.  At which point, the person must pay the social penalty for the crime but is assured that God has forgiven him.  No way can one commit a serious crime evefn if not confessed and have no obligation whatsoever to confess to the authorities without jeapordising their spiritual and moral wellbeing.

Also, I think that we now have very clear evidence that the confession of a poedaphile just might be insincere, wanting God's forgiveness but not to follow the rule of Catholicism and The Gospel "to give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and confess their crime resolving never to do it again.  Our obligation as Catholics is to abide by the laws of the land, hence the person's spiritual and indeed moral wellbeing is in jeapordy and perhaps seriously and mortally so.  It is grave matter, there is full consent to grave matter and full consent is presumed in this instance providing it is present.

I mean, a priest can absolve in Confession, but it is totally dependant on the disposition of the penitent at the time.

 

But I am no theologian.  Interesting point though and a very important one.  We have Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse here in Aust. which The Catholic Church is really in the hotseat with focus.  There has been talk of trying to prevent legally the seal of confession in serious confessed matter that is criminal in content.  But methinks if they try to attack the confessional seal, then lawyers and confidence between one who consults a lawyer and the lawyer is then also in jeopardy as is patient/doctor confidence possibly.

 

 

 

 

[BarbTherese]

If it is a fact that conditional absolution cannot be given under the condition the penitent reavels his or her crime to the authorities.  Then it can certainly be pointed out to them by the confessor that not to confess to civil authority may well put their soul in a state of serious possibly mortal sin.  It is then up to the penitent to make a decision.  Have a serious crime confessed forgiven by God in Confession - but if they do not report themselves to civil authority they may well be in the position of committing a serious and possible mortal sin, jeapordizing their soul anyway.  In theory and only to this mind, one mortal sin is forgiving but anothermight well be committed depending on the decision of the penitent.  Such spiritual advice can certainly take place in the Confessional.

It is grave matter to have committed a serious crime and not confess the matter to civil authorities.  As I said, full knowledge is present because the priest in Confession has ensured that the penitent knows his responsibilities under The Lord.  Full consent not to confess to authorities then means to me that the three conditions for mortal sin are present.  The penitent is forgiven the serious sin confessed in Confession and forgiven by God - but is then in serious danger indeed of committing another.

 

But again, no theologian here.

2.33am here and I usually hit the sack at 8.3O pm or so,.  Public Holiday tomorrow, God bless richly our ANZAC military and all military everywhere.  I am now hitting the sack fer shure! 

Edited April 24, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Had to put this in while I thought of it!  If the penitent does not confess to authorities after the spiritual advice given and returns to the Confessional to confess that failure, God forgives Him that failure - but the obligation to report to authorities that original crime still remains with grave matter coupled with full knowledge and if he decides still not to report himself to authorities, full consent is present.  The three conditions for mortal sin.

[BarbTherese]

Phatmas and that jolly short edit period.  ONe of the requirements for a good confession is sincere sorrow and a sincere resolution to avoid sin in the future.  If the confessor tells the penitent in spiritaul advice that a serious crime must be reported to the authorities and the penitent decides he or she will not do this - then is a firm purpose of amending one's life and avoiding sin present?  Is the confession thus invalidated?