“Beyond Belief”: Confession. Just disgusting

[ekim]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Robbie]

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]

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.

[floo]

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!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[ekim]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Robbie]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Robbie]

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)

[Rhiannon]

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.'

[Robbie]

Have you listened to the programme Rhiannon?

[Rhiannon]

I posted before you did.

[Robbie]

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.

[Gordon]

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.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

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..."