“Beyond Belief”: Confession. Just disgusting

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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)

[floo]

Priests should be prosecuted if they fail to shop criminals!

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[floo]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[floo]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Robbie]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[floo]

After the first seven words, a full stop would have been fine.

I agree.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?