Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on March 27, 2017, 05:34:38 PM
-
Just been listening to “Beyond Belief” on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1svc). Someone called “Fr. Chris Hilton” set out about as morally disgusting a rationalisation for not shopping a child abuser as I’ve heard.
He was asked what he’d do if he heard confession from a child abuser likely to re-offend and he said that he wouldn’t shop him. In fact he said that it had happened, and he’d seen that person “week after week” (during which time presumably the abuser’s victim may well have continued to be hurt). When pushed about whether it would bother him that real harm had been done through his inaction, he sad no – partly because he wanted the person to promise not to do it again, to “do penance and pray” and he followed with some guff about being just a tool of "god’s grace" etc.
Who the hell does he think he is? Someone in front of him says he’s abused a child and may well do so future and yet his confidence in the truth of his own dogma is such that that’s a risk he’s prepared to take? The cops and social services on the other would presumably make the child's interest paramount, and would remove the abuser immediately - and for good reason.
Seriously? For fuck’s sake.
He also incidentally told a story about an old lady who’d kept secret a abortion she had aged 16, and what a joyful experience it was that she’d finally “confessed” to it so she could now receive communion. He was entirely oblivious to the fact that it was his own faith in the first place that had made her think she’d committed a terrible “sin”.
What the hell is wrong with him and people like him?
-
Well said indeed. I was in and out of the room but heard most of it. Really sets your teeth on edge, that sort of thing.
-
Was he asked what would happen if it was your 5 year old sister being abused?
(Note there was a very much longer version of this post but due to forum restrictions I removed the swear words)
-
Priests should be prosecuted if they fail to shop criminals!
-
Will have a listen this evening.
I'd have though there were laws about failing to report a crime and concealing evidence that could apply unless of course priests who do the confession stuff are exempt - anyone know?
Can't see how a 'doing god's work' excuse can apply without the implication that god must allow child abuse to continue to occur even though one of its little helpers could have intervened. Can't see how any one with a scruple of decency could support the position of this priest.
-
Hi NS,
Was he asked what would happen if it was your 5 year old sister being abused?
(Note there was a very much longer version of this post but due to forum restrictions I removed the swear words)
No he wasn't. Normally I fight shy of that kind of thing - arguing against the death penalty for example, and then having someone respond with, "but what if it was your loved one who'd been murdered?" as if that was a legitimate point on the principle. In this case though, perhaps it would have been a good question to ask - would his confidence in the rightness of his faith beliefs be greater that the risk that his kid sister might be being harmed by her step-father for example.
This kind of thing by the way is so I so dislike religious faith: not only do people believe it, they act on it. Interestingly, he also said that - outside of the confessional – he would shop the abuser. In other words, it was the environment of his faith that made him behave so contemptibly. How on earth could he ever be argued out of that?
-
Even if the RCC doesn't permit a priest to break the seal of the confessional, a priest should report someone confessing to a serious crime like paedophilia, even at risk of being defrocked.
-
Floo/Gordon,
Actually I did wonder about that. Having said that he heard the confessions of an abuser for "weeks and weeks" without shopping him, one wonders what would happen if Plod took an interest?
-
Hi NS,
No he wasn't. Normally I fight shy of that kind of thing - arguing against the death penalty for example, and then having someone respond with, "but what if it was your loved one who'd been murdered?" as if that was a legitimate point on the principle. In this case though, perhaps it would have been a good question to ask - would his confidence in the rightness of his faith beliefs be greater that the risk that his kid sister might be being harmed by her step-father for example.
This kind of thing by the way is so I so dislike religious faith: not only do people believe it, they act on it. Interestingly, he also said that - outside of the confessional – he would shop the abuser. In other words, it was the environment of his faith that made him behave so contemptibly. How on earth could he ever be argued out of that?
People act on beliefs, whether religious or other, is sure a tautology? It's not religious beliefs that causes people to act, and of course you have in the past used a No True Scotsman fallacy, on any acts based on religious beliefs that are 'good'.
I could introduce to a large number of people who wouldn't shop someone doing this if they were confessed to in the pub. Shall we ban pubs?
-
The RCC has a very serious problem if it doesn't permit the priests to report offences like paedophilia, and other crimes which put people in danger.
-
The RCC has a very serious problem if it doesn't permit the priests to report offences like paedophilia, and other crimes which put people in danger.
After the first seven words, a full stop would have been fine.
-
NS,
People act on beliefs, whether religious or other, is sure a tautology?
But the point rather was that they rely on them as a reliable guide to how to behave – regardless of whatever counter-arguments there may be or it seems ever be.
It's not religious beliefs that causes people to act…
That’s not my argument. Religious beliefs are whatever they happen to be. Rather it’s the underlying rationale of “faith” I think to be problematic.
…and of course you have in the past used a No True Scotsman fallacy, on any acts based on religious beliefs that are 'good'.
Are you channeling Vlad? He too is given to using “of course” when he has no examples.
I could introduce to a large number of people who wouldn't shop someone doing this if they were confessed to in the pub. Shall we ban pubs?
You’re missing it. In principle a least those people would be persuadable. So far as I could tell, no amount of persuasion would have been able to change “Fr.” Hilton’s mind. He knew – really, really knew – because that’s what his faith told him. That's the point.
-
I found this in Wikipedia:
In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.
— Sir George Jessel MR, Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch.D 681
During that time of my life when I was being indoctrinated and brainwashed, I was told that the confession is being made to God. The priest is merely the conduit through which the sinner communes with God.
Alfred Hitchcock (a devout Catholic for all his life) made a film called I Confess.
-
NS,
But the point rather was that they rely on them as a reliable guide to how to behave – regardless of whatever counter-arguments there may be or it seems ever be.
That’s not my argument. Religious beliefs are whatever they happen to be. Rather it’s the underlying rationale of “faith” I think to be problematic.
Are you channeling Vlad? He too is given to using “of course” when he has no examples.
You’re missing it. In principle a least those people would be persuadable. So far as I could tell, no amount of persuasion would have been able to change “Fr.” Hilton’s mind. He knew – really, really knew – because that’s what his faith told him. That's the point.
Acting on an is can't make an ought unless you assume stuff. You assume stuff, religious people assume stuff. And the difference is?
I note your attempt to say anyone using 'of course' is somehow wrong. And the evasion of the point. Did you mean to do that? Because it's a very bad argument.
-
NS,
Acting on an is can't make an ought unless you assume stuff. You assume stuff, religious people assume stuff. And the difference is?
The difference is that the police and social services behave on the basis of knowledge and experience about how child abusers actually behave. This priest presumed to know better – the difference being that the abuser was left in situ for longer than necessary, and so was free to abuse for longer than would have been the case if he'd been reported.
This is real life, not an abstruse point of epistemology.
I note your attempt to say anyone using 'of course' is somehow wrong.
I did no such thing. If you think I’ve attempted the no true Scotsman fallacy, tell me where.
And the evasion of the point. Did you mean to do that? Because it's a very bad argument.
What point? What I actually did was to explain why I thought you’d missed my point. Let’s start with that – do you see a qualitative difference between the persuadibility of those with faith and those without, at least in principle?
-
NS,
The difference is that the police and social services behave on the basis of knowledge and experience about how child abusers actually behave. This priest presumed to know better – the difference being that the abuser was left in situ for longer than necessary, and so was free to abuse for longer than would have been the case if he'd been reported.
This is real life, not an abstruse point of epistemology.
I did no such thing. If you think I’ve attempted the no true Scotsman fallacy, tell me where.
What point? What I actually did was to explain why I thought you’d missed my point. Let’s start with that – do you see a qualitative difference between the persuadibility of those with faith and those without, at least in principle?
so the first para here from you is a non sequitur. Were we on police and social services , as opposed you and another person?
Second para, we appear to be exactly in theory not real life according to your OP.
Third para, I thought you were going to be slightly more honest than this. Do you want to deny that we have a number of conversations on here where you argue bad actuine caused by religions, good actions cause by evolutionary altruism? If you are then, who knows if I can be bothered digging back, but since you know you have said it, up to you and your own honesty.
Fourth para, how do you do anything without some idea of principle. Why are any of them different! How do you show that without just guessing?
-
I found this in Wikipedia:
During that time of my life when I was being indoctrinated and brainwashed, I was told that the confession is being made to God. The priest is merely the conduit through which the sinner communes with God.
I read that too, also that the priest can withhold absolution which I'd have thought he'd do in a case like the one outlined, absolution being conditional on giving oneself up to the law.
Not having heard the Beyond Belief I wonder how questions were put to him and why those sorts of questions. Clergy mustget fed up with the same old subject. Like Muslims always being asked about terrorism.
-
NS,
so the first para here from you is a non sequitur. Were we on police and social services , as opposed you and another person?
No, it was an attempt to drag the discussion back to the point I was discussing from the place you wanted to take it. It’s not a sixth form debating point – it was something a priest said he’d actually done.
Second para, we appear to be exactly in theory not real life according to your OP.
How so?
Third para, I thought you were going to be slightly more honest than this. Do you want to deny that we have a number of conversations on here where you argue bad actuine caused by religions, good actions cause by evolutionary altruism? If you are then, who knows if I can be bothered digging back, but since you know you have said it, up to you and your own honesty.
Of course I don’t deny that. What’s that got to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy though?
Fourth para, how do you do anything without some idea of principle. Why are any of them different! How do you show that without just guessing?
Again, I wasn’t talking about moral philosophy. There’s every chance that a child was more hurt than would otherwise have been the case because this priest privileged his faith over his/her needs.
I happen to find that disgusting, regardless of discussions about the nature or morality.
I notice by the way that you ignored the question I asked you. Why?
-
I read that too, also that the priest can withhold absolution which I'd have thought he'd do in a case like the one outlined, absolution being conditional on giving oneself up to the law.
Not having heard the Beyond Belief I wonder how questions were put to him and why those sorts of questions. Clergy mustget fed up with the same old subject. Like Muslims always being asked about terrorism.
then why could he not have a better answer than accepting he would by omission support child abuse?
-
HH,
I found this in Wikipedia:
Quote
In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.
— Sir George Jessel MR, Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch.D 681
Thanks for that. The priest did say that he could withhold absolution, but he made no mention of this. In fact he was pretty adamant that shopping the abuser was a no-no, and that he'd have to go to the Pope for forgiveness if he did it. He seemed to me to be quite smug about his certainty, though the other quests were appalled.
-
Robinson,
[ I read that too, also that the priest can withhold absolution which I'd have thought he'd do in a case like the one outlined, absolution being conditional on giving oneself up to the law.
Not having heard the Beyond Belief I wonder how questions were put to him and why those sorts of questions. Clergy mustget fed up with the same old subject. Like Muslims always being asked about terrorism.
That’s not fair. He was a guest on a religious programme to talk specifically about confession – if he felt fed up at the question, he’d no right to be.
-
After the first seven words, a full stop would have been fine.
I agree.
-
If the person committing the crime was aware that the priest was allowed to break his vow of confidentiality for serious offences, he most likely would not have confessed the crime. Of course the priest has a duty to encourage the sinner to turn himself in, and this encouragement would not be made if he did not attend confession. The sacrament of confession is there to help the sinner to repent and sin no more, regardless of how many repeat offences are confessed.
-
If the person committing the crime was aware that the priest was allowed to break his vow of confidentiality for serious offences, he most likely would not have confessed the crime. Of course the priest has a duty to encourage the sinner to turn himself in, and this encouragement would not be made if he did not attend confession. The sacrament of confession is there to help the sinner to repent and sin no more, regardless of how many repeat offences are confessed.
This sounds as if you think a priest is right not to inform the police when he hears such confessions. If this is correct, how do you justify it?
-
AB,
If the person committing the crime was aware that the priest was allowed to break his vow of confidentiality for serious offences, he most likely would not have confessed the crime.
[
Or perhaps he would because at some level he wants to be caught. Who can say? Either way though, whether the priest does nothing or the victim doesn't go to confession in the first place the victim gets hurt. For me, nothing justifies that.
Of course the priest has a duty to encourage the sinner to turn himself in, and this encouragement would not be made if he did not attend confession. The sacrament of confession is there to help the sinner to repent and sin no more, regardless of how many repeat offences are confessed.
Or future offences the abuser says he intends to commit? Official agencies that deal with these people (police, social service etc) have a body of knowledge and experience that tells then how best to act when they become aware of a child abuser. Step one is to separate abuser from victim – what makes the priest so confident that he knows better?
-
If the person committing the crime was aware that the priest was allowed to break his vow of confidentiality for serious offences, he most likely would not have confessed the crime.
I should have thought that this would be an indication that by not being willing to face up to the consequences of his crime he is just paying lip service to his religion to ease his conscience.
-
Of course the priest has a duty to encourage the sinner to turn himself in, and this encouragement would not be made if he did not attend confession.
Would you, as a responsible citizen, on being informed of possible child abuse that you felt represented a credible risk to the child, not feel obligated to act on the information so as to ensure the well-being of the child was at least competently reviewed? I know I would.
I'd say in these circumstances the priest should do the same, and first and foremost act as a responsible citizen.
-
Gordon,
Would you, as a responsible citizen, on being informed of possible child abuse that you felt represented a credible risk to the child, not feel obligated to act on the information so as to ensure the well-being of the child was at least competently reviewed? I know I would.
I'd say in these circumstances the priest should do the same, and first and foremost act as a responsible citizen.
Actually the priest in question did say just that - if he became aware of the information outside of the confessional then he'd shop the abuser in a hear beat. Once in clerical mode though, his confidence in his dogma was such that it seemed a child being abused was a price worth paying for it not to be broken.
-
I should have thought that this would be an indication that by not being willing to face up to the consequences of his crime he is just paying lip service to his religion to ease his conscience.
I'd have thought the same but the point being made is that, if someone knows that such awful things are happening,they should not keep quiet about it or try to do something to stop it.Lots of people do keep quiet, not just priests, but this wasa priest.
Getting the man to stop completely, seek help, even move away which isnt always easy but is possible for many ; give him support all the time and arrange support for if he moves away so he is not lonely.
If someone is gentuinely repentant they will do all of that. How do we know if someone is genuine? They can clever, cunning and pull wool over the eyes.Experts in the field say such tendencies cant be cured only kept under conteol, prisons don't have great success.
Would you, as a responsible citizen, on being informed of possible child abuse that you felt represented a credible risk to the child, not feel obligated to act on the information so as to ensure the well-being of the child was at least competently reviewed? I know I would.
I'd say in these circumstances the priest should do the same, and first and foremost act as a responsible citizen.
I do agreee Gordon,some priests wouldn't know how to go about it, hearing such stories are rare. Iasked about this a couple of times years past and was told that there are ways and means but they'rer not advertised. If people [not child abusers or murderers) believed the seal fo confession could be broken, they would think the limits would change and their confidences not respected. A very tricky situation.
-
Gordon,
Actually the priest in question did say just that - if he became aware of the information outside of the confessional then he'd shop the abuser in a hear beat. Once in clerical mode though, his confidence in his dogma was such that it seemed a child being abused was a price worth paying for it not to be broken.
Then he has his priorities the wrong way around: difficult to imagine that he could compartmentalise to the extent that he couldn't see that his obligation to the child outweighed any other considerations. One wonders, for the sake of argument, what Jesus would think given his 'suffer little children' line.
-
Gordon,
Actually the priest in question did say just that - if he became aware of the information outside of the confessional then he'd shop the abuser in a hear beat. Once in clerical mode though, his confidence in his dogma was such that it seemed a child being abused was a price worth paying for it not to be broken.
Any faith which expects its priests to adhere to that is EVIL! >:( >:( >:(
-
Robinson,
I'd have thought the same but the point being made is that, if someone knows that such awful things are happening,they should not keep quiet about it or try to do something to stop it.Lots of people do keep quiet, not just priests, but this was a priest.
It’s not that he was “just a priest” in the sense that he could have been “just an accountant”. Rather this was someone whose own rules of being a priest prevented him from acting as he otherwise would. Moreover, he thought not breaking those rules was more important than allowing the victim to suffer more abuse.
That’s the point.
Getting the man to stop completely, seek help, even move away which isnt always easy but is possible for many ; give him support all the time and arrange support for if he moves away so he is not lonely.
Maybe, but that’s not the point. People actually qualified in this area put the victim’s needs first, and get him or her away from the abuser immediately. It’s not just an aspiration – it’s made to happen, immediately. Treating the abuser comes later.
If someone is gentuinely repentant they will do all of that. How do we know if someone is genuine? They can clever, cunning and pull wool over the eyes.Experts in the field say such tendencies cant be cured only kept under conteol, prisons don't have great success.
Again though, what the hell made the priest so confident in the rightness of his dogma that he thought he knew better than the professional agencies who deal with these matters? Had he shopped the abuser, social services, police etc would not have asked the abuser if he was “genuinely repentant” – they’d have got him the hell out of there before more harm could be done.
I do agreee Gordon,some priests wouldn't know how to go about it, hearing such stories are rare. Iasked about this a couple of times years past and was told that there are ways and means but they'rer not advertised. If people [not child abusers or murderers) believed the seal fo confession could be broken, they would think the limits would change and their confidences not respected. A very tricky situation.
Not really. Either you think a child continuing to be abused is a price worth paying for not “breaking the seal” or you don’t.
-
I'd have thought the same but the point being made is that, if someone knows that such awful things are happening,they should not keep quiet about it or try to do something to stop it.Lots of people do keep quiet, not just priests, but this wasa priest.
I think the point is as bluehillside has stated in his comment. I would add that if the priest conceals knowledge of a crime then he becomes an accessory after the fact. If the person goes on to commit a similar crime then the priest also becomes an accessory before the fact. The priest should not be beyond the law of the land. If they are, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that priests could confess to each other and continue their criminal activities at will.
-
This sounds as if you think a priest is right not to inform the police when he hears such confessions. If this is correct, how do you justify it?
I know it sounds wrong for a one off case, but looking at the bigger picture, nobody would confess such sins if they thought they would be reported to the police, so the priest would be unable to help them in any way.
-
ekim,
I think the point is as bluehillside has stated in his comment. I would add that if the priest conceals knowledge of a crime then he becomes an accessory after the fact. If the person goes on to commit a similar crime then the priest also becomes an accessory before the fact. The priest should not be beyond the law of the land. If they are, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that priests could confess to each other and continue their criminal activities at will.
I'm interested in that. If, say, a bomb went off in a school and it emerged that that the bomber had confessed beforehand to a priest who in turn had done nothing, would the secular authorities respect the priest's dogma to the extent that he would not be charged with being an accessory before the fact or similar?
It would probably take a test case to know for sure. I seem to recall though reading something about doctor/patient confidentiality being breakable if there was a greater public health issue - for example if a patient with ebola virus refused treatment.
-
AB,
I know it sounds wrong for a one off case, but looking at the bigger picture, nobody would confess such sins if they thought they would be reported to the police, so the priest would be unable to help them in any way.
Doesn’t wash. What studies have been done to compare the subsequent harm done to children when the abusers have been notified immediately to the authorities vs the harm done when they’ve confessed to a priest and been told to “repent” and left in situ?
It’s not up to a priest just to assume that he knows better than the people who work all the time in the field because his religious dogma happens to support his inaction.
-
I think the point is as bluehillside has stated in his comment. I would add that if the priest conceals knowledge of a crime then he becomes an accessory after the fact. If the person goes on to commit a similar crime then the priest also becomes an accessory before the fact. The priest should not be beyond the law of the land. If they are, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that priests could confess to each other and continue their criminal activities at will.
I agree.
Priests who don't shop criminals should be prosecuted. The idea of the confessional is crazy, imo, if it means you get to say a few hale Marys, or other daft nonsense, and you have a clean slate until you screw up again, however bad you have been! >:(
-
Did the priest say whether he'd urged the abuser to accompany him to the police/social services/ counselling? He'd be permitted to do that, no bother.
-
Bluehillside I didn't say he was just a priest, I said ".Lots of people do keep quiet, not just priests, but this was a priest.", by which I meant in this case we were talking about a priest.
Did the priest say whether he'd urged the abuser to accompany him to the police/social services/ counselling? He'd be permitted to do that, no bother.
He would be permitted. He may have speaking theoretically & never been faced with that situation.
I msut try and make time to listen to the programme, others above have said he came across smug and arrogant &i hate that.
Floo i get the impression you don't read all the posts since you last posted. It's worthwhile to do that.
-
Rhi,
Did the priest say whether he'd urged the abuser to accompany him to the police/social services/ counselling? He'd be permitted to do that, no bother.
No, and the abuser may well have refused t go in any case. Then what?
-
I've been listening to the programme which is quite different to what I'd anticipated. Please do all listen to it, it's worth it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1svc#play
I've got to the bit about the child abuse (approx 16 mins, the whole thing is 27.something), and,yes,he - Fr Chris Hilton - did have someone who confessed to that, who changed and gave himself up but that's only a part of what is being discussed. I urge people to listen,all participants (rabbi, Anglican, 2psychotherapists), speak clearly ang gently explaining things well. I'll listen to rest later & may revisit it.
(It is of particular interest to me because of being in therapy)
-
Rhi,
No, and the abuser may well have refused t go in any case. Then what?
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say here bit at least this would have shown some kind of effort.
The correct answer for what should the priest do is 'break the seal and lose his job.'
-
Have you listened to the programme Rhiannon?
-
I posted before you did.
-
I know it sounds wrong for a one off case, but looking at the bigger picture, nobody would confess such sins if they thought they would be reported to the police, so the priest would be unable to help them in any way.
That came across in the very few minutes the subject was talked about in Beyond Belief, Alan.
Fact is the vast majority of confessions are not about sexual abuse or violence but they could still be bad in other ways & people confess because they need help & guidance.
It was a good programme, not just the priest but the other people. The Rabbi and the two psychotherapists,especially the woman, talked about confidences and the consequences especially in one case of breaking the confidence.
I'm gonna listen to it again tomorrow. Think I might become a regular listender to Beyond Belief.
I posted before you did.
Yes I read the post but didn't deduce from it that you had listened, sorry.
-
Listened to it last night.
The priest is so overwhelmed by the dogma/theology surrounding the 'confession' procedure of his particular sect (RCC) that he can't see past it to the extent his judgment is impaired when he operates in his priest role, the Protestant pyschotherapist seemed to be in thrall to her religious convictions but to a lesser extent than the priest, the Rabbi clearly has issues with confidentiality as was painfully highlighted by the Buddhist pyschotherapist, where the latter seemed to be the most grounded of the quartet.
So, stuff to be worried about, such as the priest being unable to distinguish dogma from decency in circumstances that expose others to risk, and plenty to scratch one's head and wonder how some people take specific rituals like the 'confession' seriously at all.
-
Robinson,
I'm gonna listen to it again tomorrow. Think I might become a regular listender to Beyond Belief.
You should - Ernie Rea is a good and non-judgmental host, and although the contributors are sometimes madder than a box of frogs it's a consistently interesting listen I find. Like you, I get more vexed at the patronising tone of some than the content of their opinions, especially the C of E clerics who begin their sentences with, "You know..." >:(