Church and State Are Split over an Irreconcilable Difference, Sydney Morning Herald, July 25 2011

Church and State Are Split over an Irreconcilable Difference

Sydney Morning Herald
July 25, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/church-and-state-are-split-over-an-irreconcilable-difference-20110724-1hv8h.html

Catholics institutions ... rocked by abuse claims.

Laws that break the seal of Confession could be counter-productive for child protection.

One can certainly share the sense of frustration and, indeed, quite patent anger and irritation of the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, in his recent criticisms of the Vatican. In the face of overwhelming evidence of sexual and physical abuse by clergy, religious and Catholic institutions in Ireland, the Vatican seems reluctant to accept its share of responsibility. It also seems unwilling to co-operate without reservations with the Irish government's proposals to prevent such abuse in future.

The most startling new measure in a system of mandatory reporting is the obligation for priests to violate the sanctity of the "sacramental seal" of Confession when a paedophile reveals that he or she has been involved in such activities. Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a similar measure for Australia.

The sacramental seal binds priests under pain of excommunication and serious sin never to reveal what has been communicated to them by the penitent in Confession, unless the penitent gives explicit permission.

I have no hesitation in stating that priests will guard the sanctity of the seal of Confession with their very lives. They would certainly undergo imprisonment rather than violate it. Even if a penitent confesses that he or she has been involved in a case of rape, murder or serious theft, the priest will do nothing to indicate to anyone that there was a crime confessed or who was the perpetrator.

The reason is to enable complete honesty and trust in the penitent, so they will confess all their serious sins in detail. This is an absolutely necessary condition for receiving sacramental absolution - the forgiveness which, Catholics believe, God communicates through the priest. Only where there is complete and inviolable confidentiality would a potential penitent even contemplate revealing their secret sins.

Forgiveness, however, does not absolve the penitent from taking appropriate steps to remedy the grave harm he or she has perpetrated. In some circumstances, for instance in an unsolved murder case, where some other person is liable to be wrongly convicted in place of the actual perpetrator, the absolution will be conditional on surrender to the appropriate authorities or at least providing evidence of the innocence of the current suspect.

Contrary to popular belief in some quarters, confession is not a licence to continue sinning, nor does it deny or excuse the harm that has been done. It requires that the harm be remedied and, in certain circumstances, that the perpetrator be punished.

Certainly with a serial paedophile, I would expect - but this is debated among moral theologians - that the priest would advise the penitent to surrender to the secular authorities. He may even make this a condition of granting absolution. Given the likelihood of continuing offending and the irreparable harm inflicted on their victims, this may well seem to be the only way to prevent further offences.

While, then, I can certainly sympathise with and understand the Irish Prime Minister and Senator Xenophon, I believe that their extreme proposals will in the end only prove to be ineffective and even counterproductive. I say this for three reasons.

First, in most cases, because of the anonymity of the confessional interaction - often simply a voice from a darkened room - the priest will not be aware of the identity of the paedophile penitent, all the more so because paedophiles are notorious for "covering their tracks". I cannot see them being upfront in revealing their identity even in the confessional.

Second, even if priests were aware of the identity, I simply do not believe they would be willing to violate the sacramental seal and disclose the identity to the police. All the evidence in similar cases (murder, rape, serious theft, for example) in the long history of the Catholic Church suggests that priests would choose civil disobedience, contempt of court and even imprisonment in preference to breaking the seal.

Third, if such a law were to come into effect, I doubt whether any paedophiles would any longer be willing to entrust their dark secrets to the confessional. Not only would this render the law counterproductive, but it would have the further effect of closing off one avenue where paedophiles might be encouraged to come to terms with their crimes and be counselled even to surrender to the police. This, of course, unfortunately, will still be highly unlikely, but more likely than a priest violating the sacramental seal. That is why virtually all legal systems have excepted the sacramental seal from mandatory reporting systems.