Australian Royal Commission finds 7% of Catholic priests are/were pedophiles

[stevevw]

I don't know about Australia, but in the USA the priest-penitent privilege is absolute. A priest cannot be compelled to reveal what was said to him in confession and any laws that have attempted to force him to have been struck down by the courts. The privilege also extends to all religions, not just Catholic priests.

I find this hard to reconcile why someone would not defend a child that is being abused. When it comes to children they depend the adults in their life to do the right thing by them. I work in the community sector which puts me in situations where I may be told or even suspect neglect or abuse towards children. It is my duty of care to follow up on these situations. That may mean ensuring the parent or person involved with the child has the right support to better look after the child or informing the authorities if there are more serious abuses involved.

If a person who is in a position where they are aware of abuses or even suspect abuses and does not take any action as far as preventing the child being in that situation then they become negligible as far as a duty of care is concerned. This includes anyone that has an association with children including child care workers, teachers, community workers, welfare workers, counsellors, psychologists and other professionals. It also includes doctors who may have to break their hypocritic oath when informing on a patient of theirs.

If a person does not take action then they are subjecting the child to more abuse which is not only a breach of the law but I would have thought it is against Christ's teaching for bringing harm to the little ones in that they are knowingly allowing a child to be subjected to abuse which makes them negligent and guilty by association. As Jesus states in
Matthew 18:6, If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble. Causes to stumble does not just mean directly causing harm but also indirectly causing harm.

Matthew 18:6
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

[Zoii]

hi again - No its was on the TV ABC news re the commission's findings with a representative from the catholic body responsible for healing & reconciliation with victims making a statement it will abide by laws should reporting of child sexual abuse extend to the clergy... I cant find a link though but this link again makes reference to the commission.

 

[Cimorene]

That's the worst betrayal of trust. Those innocent kids.

 

[Hank77]

Like most everyone else I am especially offended by churches being involved -- I shouldn't be but there it is.

I think we should be more offended. Our men of God are to be the messengers of Christ, and many put more trust in them than they would anyone else. It an especially hurtful and devastating betrayal of trust.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know about Australia, but in the USA the priest-penitent privilege is absolute. A priest cannot be compelled to reveal what was said to him in confession and any laws that have attempted to force him to have been struck down by the courts. The privilege also extends to all religions, not just Catholic priests.

Hi Tallguy yes here too. That is likely to change and the catholic church indicated that they would support and comply with laws where the confessional was used to cover criminal activity. The commission identified that priests were confessing their evils and that that very act was used as a means to cover their activity. The net result was that the priest either continued or was moved to another area where he would simply start his evil activity afresh.

Not strictly accurate. In Australia laws which relate to confession vary by state. In my state, the laws treat the seal of the confessional as absolute and not only may I not be compelled to reveal something said in confession as part of a legal process, the law forbids me from doing so. In other states that's not the case and a priest may have to choose between upholding secular or canon law. (And the church makes it clear that they expect us to choose canon law in that case).

However... and this is a BIG however. I do not believe this to be the issue it is sometimes made out to be. There are ways of dealing with abuse revealed in confession. For example - this is what I was trained to do and my understanding is that the Catholic church has similar expectations in place - I can withhold absolution until someone has turned him/herself in. So I'm not revealing anything said in confession, but I'm also not pronouncing God's forgiveness until they've shown genuine intent to set right the wrong, and that includes being open about what they've done.

From what I've heard from very senior people, and from people who have worked extensively with abusers, those who were sexually abusing children weren't using the confessional as a rinse-and-repeat way of dealing with what they had done, because in order to do it, they had convinced themselves on some level that it wasn't really wrong. They weren't confessing it. Obviously I don't have objective evidence that that's true, but I think it makes sense when you look at the psychology of abuse.

Which is really just a way of saying that I think that formal confession is a red herring here. It wasn't the locus of the problem, and changing it isn't going to fix anything. There are other issues which need attention, so let's not get hung up on this one.

 

[JackRT]

I can withhold absolution until someone has turned him/herself in. So I'm not revealing anything said in confession, but I'm also not pronouncing God's forgiveness until they've shown genuine intent to set right the wrong, and that includes being open about what they've done.

A conditional absolution? Hadn't thought of that angle. Very reasonable.

 

[Tallguy88]

Not strictly accurate. In Australia laws which relate to confession vary by state. In my state, the laws treat the seal of the confessional as absolute and not only may I not be compelled to reveal something said in confession as part of a legal process, the law forbids me from doing so. In other states that's not the case and a priest may have to choose between upholding secular or canon law. (And the church makes it clear that they expect us to choose canon law in that case).

However... and this is a BIG however. I do not believe this to be the issue it is sometimes made out to be. There are ways of dealing with abuse revealed in confession. For example - this is what I was trained to do and my understanding is that the Catholic church has similar expectations in place - I can withhold absolution until someone has turned him/herself in. So I'm not revealing anything said in confession, but I'm also not pronouncing God's forgiveness until they've shown genuine intent to set right the wrong, and that includes being open about what they've done.

From what I've heard from very senior people, and from people who have worked extensively with abusers, those who were sexually abusing children weren't using the confessional as a rinse-and-repeat way of dealing with what they had done, because in order to do it, they had convinced themselves on some level that it wasn't really wrong. They weren't confessing it. Obviously I don't have objective evidence that that's true, but I think it makes sense when you look at the psychology of abuse.

Which is really just a way of saying that I think that formal confession is a red herring here. It wasn't the locus of the problem, and changing it isn't going to fix anything. There are other issues which need attention, so let's not get hung up on this one.

From what I've read, a Catholic priest can't withhold absolution based on a condition that a penitent turn themselves in to law enforcement. They can suggest that they do it, but can't force it. They can, however, refuse to grant absolution if the penitent isn't remorseful and doesn't plan to amend their lives. In fact, it would be sacrilegious if they absolved a wilfully unrepentant penitent.

Another thing I've heard of priests doing is if they hear a victim confessing about being abused is they can ask the person to tell him about it outside of confession. That way, they will be able to report it.

I think another thing people forget in these debates over mandatory reporting is that Catholic confession is anonymous. The priest doesn't know who is confessing to him unless the penitent chooses to confess face to face. So that would hinder mandatory reporting of confessions, too.

 

[bhsmte]

The Royal Commission into institutional child sexual abuse has found that on average 7% of priests between 1950 and 2009 were pedophiles with some individual institutes having 21%. In total 4444 cases of cild sexual abuse were identified with 90% being boys with an average age of 11 and the average age of girls being 10.

While this specific interim report focussed on catholic institutions, it has been shown to be an issue in most religous institutions and still continues.
Worst Catholic groups for child sex claims in Australia revealed

This is what happens when the realities of human physiology and psychology are ignored, and priests are asked to be completely abstinent, which humans were not meant to be.

 

[Paidiske]

If celibacy were the problem, we would see no abuse from married clergy (or indeed laity)... and that's simply not the case.

 

[JackRT]

If celibacy were the problem, we would see no abuse from married clergy (or indeed laity)... and that's simply not the case.

But is it a factor? I have a sneaking suspicion that it might well be.

 

[bhsmte]

If celibacy were the problem, we would see no abuse from married clergy (or indeed laity)... and that's simply not the case.

I wonder if the abuse of children is higher among those not allowed to marry?

 

[Paidiske]

But is it a factor? I have a sneaking suspicion that it might well be.

From what I've read, (and I've tried to keep well informed on this, because it's kind of a significant issue professionally), there are not a higher proportion of abusers, in general, in the celibate priesthood than in the general population.

However... (there's always a however, isn't there?), the patterns of abuse can look a bit different. For example, Anglican clergy have been shown to be more likely to abuse vulnerable adults in their care, and less likely to abuse children, than Catholic clergy.

What we're not sure about is why. Simply a matter of opportunity? Without a system of parish schools, historically we have much less casual contact with children.

 

[loveofourlord]

I've often wondered if it's the celibacy part, but not due to, but due to, if your gay, pederast or such, you might go to the curch hoping that it will help you stop your urges, or least control them, I don't see a thing wrong with being gay but I can see why those that hink it's wrong might go to the church.

 

[Moral Orel]

To play Devil's advocate here (pun totally intended) for the sake of a priest not turning in a child molester who confessed in a confessional...

Once someone decides to turn one in, no one is going to go to confession for it again. At least some of the time the priest has to be able to get the molester to turn himself in, or at least stop. Once they stop confessing at all to anyone, confession stops being a deterrent at all. Starting to turn people in right now might help a handful of kids now, but then put countless kids in more danger in the years to come.

At the very least it certainly puts the receiver of confessions in a moral quandary worse than just "my religion says not to tell anybody".

Side note: I like the withholding absolution bit.

 

[Allandavid]

The systematic, entrenched cover-up of these foul deeds is as disgusting as the deeds themself. These are the actions of a criminal organisation.

 

[Tallguy88]

The systematic, entrenched cover-up of these foul deeds is as disgusting as the deeds themself. These are the actions of a criminal organisation.

I agree the cover up is heinous and those responsible will answer to a much higher judge than any on Earth. So take heart, if they escape justice in this life, it will catch them in the next.

 

[Allandavid]

I agree the cover up is heinous and those responsible will answer to a much higher judge than any on Earth. So take heart, if they escape justice in this life, it will catch them in the next.

No, I'd prefer to see the justice meted out in the environment in which the crimes were committed. To an atheist, 'they'll get theirs in the next life' is something of a cop-out.

 

[Tallguy88]

No, I'd prefer to see the justice meted out in the environment in which the crimes were committed. To an atheist, 'they'll get theirs in the next life' is something of a cop-out.

To an atheist, if they die without being caught, they got away scott free. To a Christian, we know they can never escape justice.

 

[Allandavid]

To an atheist, if they die without being caught, they got away scott free. To a Christian, we know they can never escape justice.

"Know"? Well...............

Such a belief contributed to the crimes in the first place.

'We don't need to turn them over to secular justice. With god's help, we can assist them to change their ways and to seek forgiveness.'

The result of such an approach?

 

[Allandavid]

Besides, even if you believe as you do, can't the most heinous of criminals receive forgiveness, absolution and therefore the keys to paradise, as long as they make a sincere plea?