When Should Clergy Confess?

[drmomentum[$]]

'Confession' in sex abuse case a bind for clergy

When should a clergyman's statements be used in court? If a confession of sexual abuse is given, do religions officials have the right to report that layperson or clergyman to the authorities? Do they further have a responsibility to do so? Should they further have a legal responsibility to report such acts?

The idea that someone receiving religious comfort is given some protection from being ratted out by his priest is one most people accept. But it is somewhat hypocritical for a clergyman to be taking advantage of a posiiton of authority by molesting youngsters, and then turning to that same religious system for protection when the law comes a-knocking.

-JP

[evmori]

It doesn't sound like the clergy have the problem. It sounds like the offender is trying to hide behind the clergy/client privledge. Scum bags always try to find a hole to crawl into.

[Redlass]

In cases of Catholic priests, it can't matter for them what the law is. Technically, the confession isn't being made to them. They are representing Christ and acting as an intermediary. To discuss anything they hear in confession with anyone is a violation of their sacred duty. They're representing God and to God sin is sin. We as a society may (and should) say that some crimes are more heinious than others.

Here's part of the problem with mandating confessors report confessions of sexual abuse. What if the abuser is looking for a way to stop and the confessor is able to help him or her with that? Granted, we would still like to see them punished. However, I'd much rather they see someone and stop their behavior, than know that they can never tell anyone and continue their behavior.

That being said, I'd like to see the confessor be able to take strong action inside the Seal to make sure the confesser stops.

[poseidon]

I would have a hard problem with a priest, pastor, rabbi, cleric, whoever who violated his code of ethics with God and instead turned on someone -- no matter how heinous the crime -- to the authorities.

I know that this is easy to say from my position right now, and if I were a victim I'd probably want to force them to testify, but in a true case of what's right and what's wrong, it would be very wrong. And it would be very wrong in every circumstance.

God takes care of everyone in the end.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon
I would have a hard problem with a priest, pastor, rabbi, cleric, whoever who violated his code of ethics with God and instead turned on someone -- no matter how heinous the crime -- to the authorities.

I know that this is easy to say from my position right now, and if I were a victim I'd probably want to force them to testify, but in a true case of what's right and what's wrong, it would be very wrong. And it would be very wrong in every circumstance.

God takes care of everyone in the end.

How do you square this philosophy with your belief in the death penalty?

Bridgette writes:
Here's part of the problem with mandating confessors report confessions of sexual abuse. What if the abuser is looking for a way to stop and the confessor is able to help him or her with that?

Our president would probably point out that if you kill a murderer that ensures he will commit no more murders. By the same token I think I would feel more comfortable if a child molester were put behind bars. It's not that I think that a pastor would be completely ineffective in helping such a person, it's that I think it is not in the community's best interest.

Scoutmaster writes:
It doesn't sound like the clergy have the problem. It sounds like the offender is trying to hide behind the clergy/client privledge. Scum bags always try to find a hole to crawl into.

I agree that the clergyman doing the molesting is a pretty low individual, but I don't understand how you have missed the "problem" in the situation.

in truth, I think the clergy turning in one of their own is a slightly different situation compared to turning in a layperson who comes to them to confess. The religious organization is set up presumably to do some good for people, and in this capacity they take on a role of authority. When that role of authority is corrupted from within, and one of their number is taking advantage of it to commit heinous crimes, I think you're looking at a responsibility on the part of the organization to cleanse itself.

I didn't set out to quesiton the general notion of privilege between congregant and confessor (I think it is a somewhat flawed notion, but they are probably flaws that society can live with.) My greater concern is this specific type of situation.

-JP

[evmori]

I don't understand how you have missed the "problem" in the situation.

From what I read, the problem is the offender is trying to claim what he told the clergy was a confession. And it was, however according to the article, he was fully aware of their intentions to turn him in. If this in fact is true, I don't have a problem with what the clergy did. Some might say a confession is a confession. This is true but if a person confesses to a member of the clergy and know ahead of time that the clergy will turn him onto the authorities then there is no privledge.

[hadassahchana[$]]

It's not that I think that a pastor would be completely ineffective in helping such a person, it's that I think it is not in the community's best interest.

I'll go one step further - I do feel that a pastor would be fairly ineffective in helping in this particular situation.

Child molesters have the highest rate of recidivism of any criminal, and I for one would not be at all happy with relying on any religious leader trying on his/her own to help a molester overcome those feelings. Sorry, but in this case, a prison is the best choice, and I really think that this is one of those cases where clergy ought to report such things to the authorities.

I used to run a centre for pregnant teens, and we did a lot of post-partum counseling and parenting classes as well. One of our goals was to get the girls to feel close to us, to trust us enought that we could be effective in helping them.

Occasionally, one would actually tell us that a boyfriend was abusing her child, or that she herself was. This would always come out in the counseling sessions, which were to remain confidential. However, we all knew that if a report of child abuse came through, we had to go to Children's Aid at once. The province would have shut us down in a minute if it had been discovered that we were covering for child abusers- and quite rightfully so, IMO. Yes, we occasionally lost the trust of our clients, and some never returned. However, I slept very well at night, thank you, knowing that at least the child had been protected.


Cindy

[poseidon]

JP,

I have no problem with the death penalty. I'm a supporter of capital punishment. So, I have no problems with my philosophy on it. Again, we punish as we find the case. We are not God and we are not perfect.

Cindy,

I would agree with you to the extent that a pastor, priest, whatever would most likely do an ineffective job at counseling a sex offender. At the same time, that's not the same thing as being in a confessional. In some religions (not most Protestant ones), confessing to a priest is the same thing as confessing directly to God. The priest is there to act as an intermediary between God and man (which is why most Protestants wouldn't accept that philosophy).

And with all due respect, I don't think that the confidentiality situation and that of a parishoner and his/her priest is quite on the same level, due to the Third Party that's involved.

What do you do with a lawyer who knows his/her client is guilty -- guilty of horrible crimes against children even? He/she has a sworn duty to defend that client and to never violate the lawyer/client priveledge that they share (one of the reasons that I decided not to continue on to law school was that I didn't feel I could live with myself given that kind of situation). Should the lawyer address the jury and say that he/she knows the client is guilty and refuse to defend them?

My moral obligation to society would say that's exactly what should be done. That's what I'd want to be done. But I'm not sure that it is the "right" thing to do.

Thank God I don't have myself in a situation where I have to deal with priveledged information.

Jeff

[drmomentum[$]]

Jeff:

"God takes care of everyone in the end" but sometimes he's too slow, I guess and that's why we fry 'em.

But, then again, sometimes we are content to let them work it out on their own. Considering the recidivism rate of child molesters, and the fact that many victims are repeat targets, I don't find the platitude all that comforting.

-JP

[juliette]

It seems like there are two ways in which the word confession is being used here. In the article originally cited, the guy "confessed" after being confronted by his co-worker/superior. Regardless of the occupation of the individuals involved, he should have been reported; in fact they were required by law to report him, as I understand it.

During the spiritual rite (or sacrament, for Catholics) of "confession," there exists a commonly-held belief in the legally confidential nature of the exchange.

However, in my experience with Catholic confession, at least, one does not confess a sin like murder or child abuse, and then receive an off-the-cuff penance of say, three Hail Mary's and an Our Father. Part of the process of receiving divine forgiveness (it is believed) requires taking responsibility for your actions, and making restitution where possible.

If that guy had really "made a confession" of his sins, he would have been expected to turn himself in. Instead, to quote the article, I think he is just grasping at straws.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon
I would have a hard problem with a priest, pastor, rabbi, cleric, whoever who violated his code of ethics with God and instead turned on someone -- no matter how heinous the crime -- to the authorities.

Apparently, some consider it a moral obligation to make sure the public (children) get protected:

In the absence of legislation, some denominations are imposing their own policies, essentially requiring that clergy turn in suspects as a moral obligation.


''I tell both the youth in our fellowships and the adults I work with that I am a mandatory reporter,'' said the Rev. Molly Wells Phinney, a United Church of Christ minister in Beverly. ''There can't be any real spiritual repentance without addressing the public justice element.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/25...abuse%2b.shtml

I also found it interesting that Massachusetts is one of only 21 states which "still exempt clergy from laws requiring people who work with children to turn in alleged sexual abusers."

It doesn't look like those exemptions are going to hold up, especially since many clergy are looking to overturn the laws that bar clergy from disclosing such information obtained in counsel.

-JP

[theeye]

Originally posted by drmomentum
[B When should a clergyman's statements be used in court? If a confession of sexual abuse is given, do religions officials have the right to report that layperson or clergyman to the authorities? Do they further have a responsibility to do so? Should they further have a legal responsibility to report such acts?
[/b]

The question of whether they have the "right" to report only seems meaningful to me within the context of that particular religious tradition: any obligation of a religious official to remain silent can only come from their religion. Thus, I don't think it's meaningful to ask this question "generically": if the consensus of that religion is that they have the right, then they clearly do have the right. This makes it a somewhat uninteresting question -- it's not really a "debate" question, but more of a factual discussion of comparative religion (leaving aside the existence of internal religious debates within the context of various religious traditions).

My understanding (usual caveats that I speak as an uneducated outsider when speaking of non-Jewish religions and may well be completely wrong) is that Catholicism would answer with an uncategorical "no": there is no right of a priest to reveal any confession.

The Jewish view is very different. All religious Jews (not just rabbis) are bound by a complex and very specific set of rules governing speech. Among those rules are a set of guidelines for when "telling tales" is (a) forbidden, (b) permitted, or (c) mandatory. Situations such as those we are discussing here fall pretty unambiguously in the "mandatory" category. So, Jews would answer: yes, we have not only a right, but an obligation to report in such cases.

By the way, I just finished reading Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's "Words that Hurt, Words that Heal", which is an extremely accessible, non-technical introduction to the Jewish laws of speech that might be of interest even to non-religious types who just want to explore the ethics of speech. While the principles are all derived directly from Jewish law, the book has a very light touch with regard to direct references to Jewish law and reads almost more like a popular exploration of a philosophy of ethics. It would, I think, be meaningful even to someone from a different or no religious tradition. I recommend it highly.

As for whether there should be a legal obligation to report, we, of course, get into the sticky area of balancing our broad society's values and needs against the (differing) religious needs (and rights) of its constituent communities. I am in favor of bending a great deal toward the accommodation of religious practice even where that bending makes me ethically a bit "queasy". That's because I consider religious freedom an extremely important value of American society and, when it conflicts with other values that I also hold dear, I give it an enormous amount of weight.

My inclination to do so stems, in large part, from the fact that I belong to a religious minority -- if I'm not willing to make accommodations for others, how can I expect them to be made for me? I think that my inclination in this regard is also very much consonant with the views of the "founding fathers" -- and the fact that this country was founded largely by people fleeing religious persecution makes that consonance not surprising.

So I would vigorously defend a Catholic priest's right not to report a child molester, though I'd be a lot happier if his religion didn't forbid him to do so.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by theeye
Thus, I don't think it's meaningful to ask this question "generically": if the consensus of that religion is that they have the right, then they clearly do have the right. This makes it a somewhat uninteresting question -- it's not really a "debate" question, but more of a factual discussion of comparative religion (leaving aside the existence of internal religious debates within the context of various religious traditions).

It's the legal aspect that makes the question more than just a comparative religion review. If there are laws that prohibit clergy from reporting such offenses, as there are in Massachusetts, we could see conflicts. My use of the word "right" is intentionally ambiguous.

In this case, even the Catholic church (in this state, at least) is behind an effort to get the law changed to allow ministers to report such abuse (I don't know if the bill goes so far as to mandate reporting).

To me, that is interesting because it represents a change from what I was used to hearing and what I expected. This is no small shift. I dunno - I find it of interest.

-JP

[theeye]

JP-

I was unclear. I did not mean to imply that your entire post constituted nothing more than a question of comparative religion. I specifically meant to take your questions one at a time. The first question -- whether a clergy person has a "right" to report -- is the one which I felt was meaningful only within a specific religious tradition and was, therefore, not a matter for generic debate.

Obviously that question is just a preface to the genuinely interesting question of what the legal stance should be and I agree that this is a very difficult (and therefore interesting!) question.

My post was not intended to denigrate the interest level of your post but rather to highlight the specific part of it which I felt lent it its general interest.

In short, I am completely in agreement with your last post.

[theeye]

Originally posted by drmomentum



In this case, even the Catholic church (in this state, at least) is behind an effort to get the law changed to allow ministers to report such abuse (I don't know if the bill goes so far as to mandate reporting).

-JP

Hmm... having reread this, I am confused. Are you saying that there is currently a law on the books which specifically makes it (civilly) illegal for ministers to report such abuse, even if their religious hierarchy permits and/or requires it?

I had not considered the possibility that the law might actually forbid a minister from reporting as opposed to either protecting or not protecting a right to not report.

In light of that, I would have to retract my original assertion that the "right" to report is strictly a religious question.

I am, however, astonished that this is actually the case. (Can you confirm it?)

[drmomentum[$]]

I can only confirm what the Globe reported:

"Massachusetts is one of 21 states that still exempt clergy from laws requiring people who work with children to turn in alleged sexual abusers, and the state has an unusually strict priest-penitent privilege law barring clergy from disclosing information they learn from individuals seeking spiritual counsel. "

I ca say that this was somewhat of a surprise to me, but there have been a lot of strict laws on the books in Massachusetts because of its strict conservative religious past.

If anything else turns up on this, I will post it.

-JP

[theeye]

No matter how logical and objective I may think I'm being, I look at issues through my own personal prism as do we all.

When I assumed the discussion was about the right of priests to remain silent, my reaction was necessarily one emotional step apart from the issue (no matter how strongly I feel about religious freedom).

Now that I see that we're talking, potentially, about a rabbi being prohibited from following a religious dictate that requires reporting when that reporting is necessary to save a life, the issue cuts closer.

I'm not sure where I come out on the advisability of the law you cite -- but I'm humbled to see how wrong my assumptions were.

Thanks -- I appreciate your taking off my blinders.

[frazzledspice]

I think that psychiatrists and mental health professionals are required to report confessions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse.

I am somewhat ambivalent as to whether priests and confessors should be subject to the same requirement.

Abusing children sexually is certainly one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

But most pedophiles were themselves victimized as children. If they try to seek help for their problem, to whom can they turn? Psychiatrists and psychologists are required to report them. Clergymen may report them.

Not only that, should they be imprisoned and paroled, the entire community is informed of their residency. They are sometimes picketed, scapegoated, and tormented.

Of course, prison isn't much better, for they are usually victimized by the other prisoners, who despise the crime they've committed.

They are very sick people, and they have committed terrible acts, but if there isn't a safe place where they can go to seek treatment, or a safe person to whom they can confide, they will never try to get the help they desperately need.

I feel that, if they confide to a clergyman, the clergyman should strongly counsel them to seek treatment with absolute confidentiality.

But if I were a clergyman and a pedophile came to me and confessed multiple acts of child molestation, and if he seemed unable to change, I would be sorely tempted to report him to the authorities.

[jgibson2[$]]

There were 5 people in the room when that man confessed -- 5 in addition to him. 3 were ministers, who may or may not have had a religious obligation to maintain silence. I won't pretend to know anything about the United Church of Christ in that regard. The other two were lay leaders, according to the article.

HELLO!!!!! That man cannot have expected that he could admit to crimes of that magnitude in front of 5 people, two of whom were not ministers and not have SOMEBODY report him to the police. He's fishing.

The folks from the United Church of Christ set themselves up for this suit, though. They should never have confronted the man. They should simply have brought their suspicions to the local authorities. I've been involved with Boy Scouts for a very long time. They have a program in place to protect the kids. Every leader is required to attend a course in which it is DRUMMED INTO YOUR HEAD that you do NOT take on this type of investigation. You are to call the police for allegations of criminal activity and you are to call Scout Headquarters to have them deal with the fallout. I believe that they had an obligation to report, but I think they handled it badly.


Roman Catholic Confession -- one on one, in virtually all cases. There are a few exceptions, but those are so uncommon as to be irrelevant for what I'm about to say:

Priests are expected to DIE rather than reveal what is told to them in the confessional. The sacrament would not exist without that expectation. A priest who violates the seal is automatically excommunicated. His bishop can't absolve him, he has to talk to the Pope.

Anything you say to a priest with 4 witnesses present and participating in the conversation is NOT bound by the seal of the confessional. It just doesn't qualify.