What do you think about the sacraments?

[The Liturgist]

I have strong reason to believe that a small number of people get a thrill from making up shocking crimes to tell priests in the confessional, because people are known to do that with the police. In fact I think we* might be more at risk from people trying to shock us, prank us, or make false confessions for the thrill of it than police because of two factors: extreme anti-clercalism in the media, driven by Catholic sex abuse and the New Atheism, and the fact that unlike the police, we can’t bust them for making a false police report.

* I say we; I don’t believe I am yet qualified to be a confessor so I have a relationship with another theologically traditional church where I confess and send my people to confess, but I am planning on attending some continuing education programs and am looking into obtaining a masters degree in psychology, or taking other steps so I am qualified to do this, as it was something done by the high church English Congregationalism I admire, although not by the very low church 18th century Revolutionary American congregationalists I also admire.

 

[Paidiske]

CleanSoul is correct. Catholic priests are not allowed to do what you have been told. That is, they cannot make reporting a condition of absolution. They can and should counsel the penitent to turn himself in, but they cannot withhold absolution in the way you claim.

Well, given that Catholic seminary professors have told me otherwise - shrug - I don't know whose claim to believe. As I understand it, most Catholic priests are not allowed to hear these confessions anyway, and must refer the penitent to a specialist in these issues (as indeed must I), so for most of us the question is moot.

In general the Catholic Church is here choosing theological soundness over societal-political efficacy, and you are doing the opposite.

I don't think it's really so very neat as all that. There are question marks over the theological soundness of leaving abuse unreported and unaddressed.

But you have subordinated grace to your social-political goals.

No, I don't think that's what I've done.

The victim won't report to civil or church authorities, and for the same reason, but in the latter case they are denied grace. This is a quite serious theological problem that few Christians seem to understand. Mandatory reporting with respect to victims treats victims as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves, and when sacred ministers are the ones engaging in this behavior the victim actually begins to understand God as just another person who uses them as a means to an end. What mandatory reporting does is make reporters legally liable if they do not report. Thus the report is often seen as (and often is) more of a selfish act than anything else. The victim is coerced into publicizing their abuse simply because the reporter is afraid of the law or because the State wants to reduce a societal ill. They become a means to these ends. Practically speaking it leads to a culture where abuse is kept secret and no one can be trusted; theologically it is even worse.

You have articulated the problems with mandatory reporting with depth and precision. They are exactly the reason why I have a problem with the current situation. But I would not go so far as to say that victims are "denied grace."

 

[zippy2006]

Well, given that Catholic seminary professors have told me otherwise - shrug - I don't know whose claim to believe. As I understand it, most Catholic priests are not allowed to hear these confessions anyway, and must refer the penitent to a specialist in these issues (as indeed must I), so for most of us the question is moot.

A Catholic seminary professor told you that Catholic priests are not allowed to hear the confessions of pedophiles? The difficulty is that this is not only false, but it is also logically impossible. There is no way to screen penitents, and doing so would be an infraction against the seal. You would only know that the penitent is a pedophile once they have confessed their sin, at which point it is protected by the seal.

Referral to a specialist has to do with counseling, not confession, which are two very different things in Catholic theology. If someone comes to confession seeking counseling, and the priest is unable to give counsel, then he would generally offer absolution and recommend the penitent to a counselor for their counseling. Since the counselor is not able to forgive sins that responsibility of absolution would fall to the priest.

I don't think it's really so very neat as all that. There are question marks over the theological soundness of leaving abuse unreported and unaddressed.

I think what I said gets to the heart of it. The Liturgist earlier spoke of the KGB bugging confessionals. Hypothetically speaking, what do you think God would do if the State told him that he is a mandated reporter, and everything he hears in prayer is subject to reporting? If God complied or was forced to comply, your heart-to-heart prayer with God would change drastically. It would no longer be a sacred dialogue. It would be subordinated to some other goal. I don't see how any Church that claims to mediate that sacred encounter between God and man could ever accept mandatory reporting or similar proposals.

No, I don't think that's what I've done.

You have articulated the problems with mandatory reporting with depth and precision. They are exactly the reason why I have a problem with the current situation. But I would not go so far as to say that victims are "denied grace."

Well, it would deny them that experience of forgiveness and catharsis that you explained in #143. I don't know how that could be seen as anything other than a very significant grace.

 

[Paidiske]

A Catholic seminary professor told you that Catholic priests are not allowed to hear the confessions of pedophiles? The difficulty is that this is not only false, but it is also logically impossible. There is no way to screen penitents, and doing so would be an infraction against the seal. You would only know that the penitent is a pedophile once they have confessed their sin, at which point it is protected by the seal.

Yes. I went to an ecumenical seminary; Anglicans, Catholics and others learned in the same classes from professors of each of the denominations. In class one day we were discussing these exact issues, and the Catholic teacher made it very clear that most priests are not authorised to absolve penitents in cases of child sexual abuse. As indeed, I am not.

It is not logically impossible. You make this clear to a potential penitent up front. And should it come out in confession, you tell the penitent that you may not absolve them of this, and must refer them to the person delegated by the bishop/archbishop to hear such confessions.

I am surprised that this is surprising to you. I wonder if it is a policy that has been implemented in some countries and not others, given the various legal issues involved.

I don't see how any Church that claims to mediate that sacred encounter between God and man could ever accept mandatory reporting or similar proposals.

Perhaps because that sacred encounter is not the only consideration. It cannot be, when we are looking at the aftermath of the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

Well, it would deny them that experience of forgiveness and catharsis that you explained in #143. I don't know how that could be seen as anything other than a very significant grace.

Not exactly. When we are talking of victims disclosing in confession, they are of course not morally culpable for their abuse. So in fact absolution would not be given for it, and the work of confession would be about helping them to recognise that their guilt is misplaced.

I do believe that conversation should be able to happen, and I am grieved that it is currently (in my observation, at least) being avoided due to mandatory reporting requirements. But it is not a withholding of grace.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes. I went to an ecumenical seminary; Anglicans, Catholics and others learned in the same classes from professors of each of the denominations. In class one day we were discussing these exact issues, and the Catholic teacher made it very clear that most priests are not authorised to absolve penitents in cases of child sexual abuse. As indeed, I am not.

It is not logically impossible. You make this clear to a potential penitent up front. And should it come out in confession, you tell the penitent that you may not absolve them of this, and must refer them to the person delegated by the bishop/archbishop to hear such confessions.

I am surprised that this is surprising to you. I wonder if it is a policy that has been implemented in some countries and not others, given the various legal issues involved.

Ah, sorry, I see what you are saying. Yes, it is probably a diocesan or regional directive. In the United States most priests are unable to absolve the sin of abortion, for example (but I think that is a universal directive).

I suppose proper advertising could avoid even the situation of mandatory reporting, as you say. That's interesting that you attended an ecumenical seminary!

Perhaps because that sacred encounter is not the only consideration. It cannot be, when we are looking at the aftermath of the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

But if a sacred encounter has to be weighed against other considerations then is it really a sacred encounter? It would at best be conditionally sacred, which I believe to be an oxymoron.

Like I said, you are altering the nature of confession on the basis of a social-political crisis. The Catholic Church sticks to the theological basis of confession (encounter between God and man), whereas the Anglican Church in Australia is altering the focus and practice in favor of trying to solve a social-political (and moral) crisis.

Not exactly. When we are talking of victims disclosing in confession, they are of course not morally culpable for their abuse. So in fact absolution would not be given for it, and the work of confession would be about helping them to recognise that their guilt is misplaced.

But #198, to which you were replying on this topic, was about victims and mandatory reporting, not transgressors and withholding absolution. My point was that those victims are denied grace, and you disagreed.

I do believe that conversation should be able to happen, and I am grieved that it is currently (in my observation, at least) being avoided due to mandatory reporting requirements. But it is not a withholding of grace.

Are you saying that only absolution is grace, so the victim who is denied the conversation is not denied grace? I would maintain that although the grace of absolution is not denied the victim, the grace of a confidential conversation and "confession"/unburdening is denied them, no?

Yet in a psychological sense guilt and victimization are often entangled. Those who are victimized often feel as though they are at fault for making themselves vulnerable or even by "enticing" the transgressor. Indeed, sometimes they really are at fault in subtle ways. But whether or not they are at fault, it can be very fruitful to allow them to cleanse their conscience by forgiving any sin that they might have committed. It can help them release any grudges they are holding against themselves and move on. At other times it could be unnecessary or even unhealthy. Nevertheless, sometimes absolution itself can be a great grace to victims.

I do believe that conversation should be able to happen...

I agree. I am not a priest but I greatly dislike jobs where I am a mandatory reporter.

 

[CleanSoul]

unlike the police, we can’t bust them for making a false police report.

But God can!

I have strong reason to believe that a small number of people get a thrill from making up shocking crimes to tell priests in the confessional, because people are known to do that with the police.

I cannot imagine anyone in a confessional in the Catholic faith doing this. When confessing, we are going to Jesus and asking for mercy. Ultimately, it is Jesus who is in the confessional hearing our confession, and forgiving us.

In fact, we are instructed to not go into storytelling mode because it can reduce a sense of contrition. We could end up sounding like we believe our sin was just. For example, you could end up saying, "so, you see, they deserved it", or, "it really wasn't my fault because...." With a line of people behind you, the priest does not have time to hear every detail, and that is a good thing.

One rule of thumb to remember is this: be bold, be brief, be gone.

A typical confession might go like this:

Penitent: Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. It has been two weeks since my last confession. I have drank alcohol to excess, one time. I have eaten food to excess, one time. I became angry with my wife, four times. For these and all sins, I am truly sorry.

Then the priest might counsel the penitent, and give some advice and suggest prayers to focus on to resist temptation, then the penance, (four Our Father's, and four Hail Mary's, or whatever). Next, the penitent says an Act of Contrition, the priest speaks the words of absolution, and that's it. Short and sweet, and yet, one of the most beautiful things in the world, in my opinion.

 

[Paidiske]

That's interesting that you attended an ecumenical seminary!

I found it very enriching. It was a very great gift to be able to learn about and from a range of different perspectives. Even though I remain a very contented Anglican, I hope I am a better one for having a good appreciation of other traditions.

Like I said, you are altering the nature of confession on the basis of a social-political crisis.

Perhaps we here rub up against the fact that we do not agree on the nature of confession to start with.

I think it is deeper than a social-political crisis. I have supported abuse victims through the reporting process. I cannot imagine the depth of evil the church would perpetrate if it were to say, we will not do all we can to prevent this happening again. We will place protecting paedophiles above our children's safety.

It's fundamentally a question of how we make sure the church is what church should be, for everyone.

But #198, to which you were replying on this topic, was about victims and mandatory reporting, not transgressors and withholding absolution. My point was that those victims are denied grace, and you disagreed. Are you saying that only absolution is grace, so the victim who is denied the conversation is not denied grace? I would maintain that although the grace of absolution is not denied the victim, the grace of a confidential conversation and "confession"/unburdening is denied them, no?

It is certainly poor practice of pastoral care. But I am not sure I would go so far as to say they are denied grace.

From where I'm standing, here's the reality: my opinion does not change the fact that, having handled these things so appallingly for decades, the public now places no trust in the church to get this right. Hence the mandatory reporting. The only way forward for us is to demonstrate, at every opportunity, that we are in fact worthy of people's trust and that we will comply with every requirement to ensure children's (and indeed everyone's) safety.

The state and the church now expect this of those in ministry. Short of seeking to work overseas or resigning my licence as a priest, there's no way around it. All I can do is get on with loving the people God brings within my sphere of influence as best I can, within the parameters laid down by secular and canon law, no matter my private opinions about how flawed those parameters might be.

But hand-wringing from people about how terrible it is that we might require an abuser to self-report before absolution is not really going to get very far with me. After all that's happened, that's the least we can do to set things right.

 

[zippy2006]

I found it very enriching. It was a very great gift to be able to learn about and from a range of different perspectives. Even though I remain a very contented Anglican, I hope I am a better one for having a good appreciation of other traditions.

Perhaps we here rub up against the fact that we do not agree on the nature of confession to start with.

I think it is deeper than a social-political crisis. I have supported abuse victims through the reporting process. I cannot imagine the depth of evil the church would perpetrate if it were to say, we will not do all we can to prevent this happening again. We will place protecting paedophiles above our children's safety.

It's fundamentally a question of how we make sure the church is what church should be, for everyone.

Hmm. This is a rather complicated topic and I'm not sure I want to get into the nitty gritty, which would be very time consuming. Yet I don't think my claims have been controversial. The Catholic model is more theologically oriented whereas your model is more socially oriented. The Catholic is trying to preserve the sacred encounter between man and God, and they do so at the expense of a potential societal ill. Your model is trying to address a societal ill, and does so at the expense of the sacred encounter. I don't see how this is controversial.

From where I'm standing, here's the reality: my opinion does not change the fact that, having handled these things so appallingly for decades, the public now places no trust in the church to get this right. Hence the mandatory reporting. The only way forward for us is to demonstrate, at every opportunity, that we are in fact worthy of people's trust and that we will comply with every requirement to ensure children's (and indeed everyone's) safety.

It's just a matter of whose trust you will honor: the State's or the penitent's. Mandatory reporting literally asks you to betray the trust of the penitent in favor of the trust of the State. It's not that the State doesn't trust you to get things right; it's that the State disagrees with the theological approach to confession.

The state and the church now expect this of those in ministry. Short of seeking to work overseas or resigning my licence as a priest, there's no way around it. All I can do is get on with loving the people God brings within my sphere of influence as best I can, within the parameters laid down by secular and canon law, no matter my private opinions about how flawed those parameters might be.

Civil disobedience is always an option, but I don't see many problems practically speaking. If you have only heard a handful of confessions in your entire life then this surely isn't a concrete source of tension in your life. It would be different for a Catholic priest. As I see it we are talking about the pros and cons of models.

But hand-wringing from people about how terrible it is that we might require an abuser to self-report before absolution is not really going to get very far with me. After all that's happened, that's the least we can do to set things right.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[CleanSoul]

In the United States most priests are unable to absolve the sin of abortion, for example

I think that was changed a few years ago, unless I am misunderstanding.

 

[Paidiske]

The Catholic model is more theologically oriented whereas your model is more socially oriented. The Catholic is trying to preserve the sacred encounter between man and God, and they do so at the expense of a potential societal ill. Your model is trying to address a societal ill, and does so at the expense of the sacred encounter. I don't see how this is controversial.

I don't agree, though. I think both dimensions are there in reality in both traditions. Perhaps part of the difference is that confession is not mandatory in Anglicanism, and so there is a sense that anyone confessing is doing so of their own free will without coercion. That is somewhat less the case in Catholicism, where confession is in theory required.

It's just a matter of whose trust you will honor: the State's or the penitent's.

Not at all. The penitent knows that this is the deal going into the conversation. They are not being betrayed.

It's not that the State doesn't trust you to get things right;

Yes, actually, when you read the reports, the background to the legislation, and so on, this is exactly the issue. In the state's eyes, churches have completely failed the vulnerable in our midst, and we cannot be trusted to self-govern in this area.

Civil disobedience is always an option, but I don't see many problems practically speaking. If you have only heard a handful of confessions in your entire life then this surely isn't a concrete source of tension in your life. It would be different for a Catholic priest. As I see it we are talking about the pros and cons of models.

Even for Catholic priests, this would be a very rare occurrence. But I agree that there are pros and cons in all directions.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

First we would have to agree that requiring an abuser to self-report is a wrong. You're not likely to get my agreement on that point.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that was changed a few years ago, unless I am misunderstanding.

Oh, you may be right. I know Francis extended the ability to more priests than were previously able. He may have eventually gone on to extend it to all priests during the Year of Mercy or something.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't agree, though. I think both dimensions are there in reality in both traditions.

But you wouldn't agree that the Catholic Church places more emphasis on sacred confidentiality, whereas your church places more emphasis on societal justice and societal healing?

(Earlier I saw The Liturgist claim that not all Anglican Churches have the Australian practice, so I am trying not to conflate that position with Anglicanism generally.)

Not at all. The penitent knows that this is the deal going into the conversation. They are not being betrayed.

Right: so they don't confess at all. It's just the same thing from a different angle. The penitent can't trust you because the State can.

Yes, actually, when you read the reports, the background to the legislation, and so on, this is exactly the issue. In the state's eyes, churches have completely failed the vulnerable in our midst, and we cannot be trusted to self-govern in this area.

Right: "in the State's eyes." According to the State's definition of what is right. Again, it's not that the State doesn't trust, it's that the State disagrees with an approach. I am not bothered by the fact that the State disagrees, but we should use objective language.

First we would have to agree that requiring an abuser to self-report is a wrong. You're not likely to get my agreement on that point.

I could go the much easier route and point to mandatory reporting, which you already believe is a necessary evil or at least a good which includes some evil consequences.


A general problem with the approach of Australia is the attempt to legislate morality, the idea that making some wooden and awkward rules is going to solve a deep and complicated problem. What is needed is a more robust moral culture where the clergy are allowed to exercise freedom and prudence. For example, the Anglican clergy should not be mandated to report. They should be allowed prudence and agency in their decision. The top-down moral authoritarianism is just a recipe for more problems.

 

[Paidiske]

But you wouldn't agree that the Catholic Church places more emphasis on sacred confidentiality, whereas your church places more emphasis on societal justice and societal healing?

I don't think it's that straightforward, no.

Right: so they don't confess at all. It's just the same thing from a different angle. The penitent can't trust you because the State can.

I don't think it's a matter of the penitent being unable to trust. It's a question of what we are able to offer. We are not able to offer covering up sexual abuse of children.

And let's be clear here: if a priest knows of such abuse and doesn't report, that is covering it up. We can make up all the fancy excuses we like, but it's the same fundamental problem.

If anyone needs to be able to trust us, it's the victims, who need to know we will always intervene on their behalf.

Right: "in the State's eyes." According to the State's definition of what is right. Again, it's not that the State doesn't trust, it's that the State disagrees with an approach. I am not bothered by the fact that the State disagrees, but we should use objective language.

From my point of view, what I am saying doesn't lack objectivity. When the state says that it doesn't trust, we should take it at its word. It's not just "disagreeing with an approach," it's recognising that time and time and time again, we (the church) have failed victims, and we have demonstrated that being left to our own devices on this matter means bad outcomes.

A general problem with the approach of Australia is the attempt to legislate morality, the idea that making some wooden and awkward rules is going to solve a deep and complicated problem.

I don't really think anyone thinks that's the case (that this is going to entirely solve the problem), but that at the very least we need some fundamental boundaries.

What is needed is a more robust moral culture where the clergy are allowed to exercise freedom and prudence. For example, the Anglican clergy should not be mandated to report. They should be allowed prudence and agency in their decision.

Despite the problems with mandatory reporting, I do disagree with this. Freedom and prudence got us decades of cover-ups, repeat offending, clergy being moved from parish to parish to find new victims, paedophile rings among the clergy, and hundreds of victims. We have demonstrated that we don't have the organisational culture to handle freedom and prudence responsibly. I have some theories as to why and what we might do to tackle that, but in the meantime, while I personally might be prepared to allow for exceptions to mandatory reporting, in general I think the requirement to report is a necessary corrective.

I am vaguely amused at a Catholic argument against "top-down moral authoritarianism," though. Hasn't that been the Catholic approach for centuries?

 

[Philip_B]

I don't think it's that straightforward, no.

I don't think it's a matter of the penitent being unable to trust. It's a question of what we are able to offer. We are not able to offer covering up sexual abuse of children.

And let's be clear here: if a priest knows of such abuse and doesn't report, that is covering it up. We can make up all the fancy excuses we like, but it's the same fundamental problem.

If anyone needs to be able to trust us, it's the victims, who need to know we will always intervene on their behalf.

From my point of view, what I am saying doesn't lack objectivity. When the state says that it doesn't trust, we should take it at its word. It's not just "disagreeing with an approach," it's recognising that time and time and time again, we (the church) have failed victims, and we have demonstrated that being left to our own devices on this matter means bad outcomes.

I don't really think anyone thinks that's the case (that this is going to entirely solve the problem), but that at the very least we need some fundamental boundaries.

Despite the problems with mandatory reporting, I do disagree with this. Freedom and prudence got us decades of cover-ups, repeat offending, clergy being moved from parish to parish to find new victims, paedophile rings among the clergy, and hundreds of victims. We have demonstrated that we don't have the organisational culture to handle freedom and prudence responsibly. I have some theories as to why and what we might do to tackle that, but in the meantime, while I personally might be prepared to allow for exceptions to mandatory reporting, in general I think the requirement to report is a necessary corrective.

I am vaguely amused at a Catholic argument against "top-down moral authoritarianism," though. Hasn't that been the Catholic approach for centuries?

It really is more pragmatic than that. Does the Church have a moral and theological responsibility to protect children or not? Does our need to protect the institution exempt us from the need to protect the innocent? Whilst I quickly recognize the appropriateness of the sanctity of the sacrament of reconciliation in general, we now know that there is a problem and we need to be on the right side of the equation. Jesus calls us to lay aside institutional norms when they are damaging people.

There really is no problem, so long as it is clearly known that confession of child sexual abuse may well receive absolution is appropriate, however the priest is a mandatory reporter. I am somewhat against withholding absolution and as we are not to lapse into donatism, however making self reporting to the relevant authority part of the penance required seems appropriate and sensible.

 

[The Liturgist]

A Catholic seminary professor told you that Catholic priests are not allowed to hear the confessions of pedophiles? The difficulty is that this is not only false, but it is also logically impossible. There is no way to screen penitents, and doing so would be an infraction against the seal. You would only know that the penitent is a pedophile once they have confessed their sin, at which point it is protected by the seal.
.

Actually there are some sins that are result in excommunication
Latae sententiae such as physically attacking the Pope, committing an abortion either as the mother or the abortionist (except for health reasons like an ectopic pregnancy I would assume), and throwing away a consecrated Host or stealing one for illicit purposes (Satanists and militant atheists like to sacrilegious abuse the body of Christ in the form of unleavened wafers that are used in the Western Rites of the Roman Catholic Church and some other denominations), among other things. These excommunications require absolution from the Pope, who delegates this authority to the Apostolic Penitentiary. The confessor and the Apostolic Penitentiary refer to the excommunicated penitent by a psuedonym in order to protect his or her privacy and the seal of the confessional.

Interestingly, Roman Catholic priests cannot bar anyone from receiving the sacraments even if they know the person has committed a sufficiently grave offense that it requires the Apostolic Penitentiary to resolve it. This stands in stark contrast to Orthodox priests, especially Eastern Orthodox priests, and especially Slavonic* and Romanian Orthodox priests, who are expected as part of their job description to refuse the sacraments other than Reconciliation to persons who they suspect to be non-Orthodox or in need of confession, until Reconciliation occurs.

*Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian and I think, Bulgarian and Serbian, but I don’t know about how strict ACROD, one of two denominations and the only denomination predominantly ethnically Carpatho-Rusyn who left the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church when they immigrated to the United States, because the American bishops, who were all Latin Rite at that time, feared the influence of married Catholic clergy, and demanded the married priests divorce their wives.

 

[Paidiske]

Interestingly, Roman Catholic priests cannot bar anyone from receiving the sacraments even if they know the person has committed a sufficiently grave offense that it requires the Apostolic Penitentiary to resolve it.

Is that correct? Certainly I have known Catholic priests to do so. Are they technically in breach of canon law when doing so?

 

[Philip_B]

Interestingly, Roman Catholic priests cannot bar anyone from receiving the sacraments even if they know the person has committed a sufficiently grave offense that it requires the Apostolic Penitentiary to resolve it.

Yet I was reading those who were demanding the Eucharist be withheld from President Biden on the issue of abortion legislation.

 

[Andrewn]

As I understand it, most Catholic priests are not allowed to hear these confessions anyway, and must refer the penitent to a specialist in these issues (as indeed must I), so for most of us the question is moot.

How do you refer pedophiles to a specialist before knowing that they are pedophiles when you hear their confession?

Other than this little point, I do like your arguments and find the other side that insists on the "seal" out of place. If Church is not interested in defending victims of abuse or a person sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit then I don't know why it should be respected in society.

(I did my best not use use expressions that may be considered inflammatory).

 

[Paidiske]

How do you refer pedophiles to a specialist before knowing that they are pedophiles when you hear their confession?

I sort of covered this in a subsequent post, but firstly you advise any new penitent up front of the boundaries of the conversation, and secondly, if it does become clear that a penitent is confessing child abuse you stop the conversation, tell them that you can't deal with this, and must refer them to someone authorised by the bishop.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if it got that far. But that's what we've been told to do!

 

[Andrewn]

Ah, sorry, I see what you are saying. Yes, it is probably a diocesan or regional directive. In the United States most priests are unable to absolve the sin of abortion, for example (but I think that is a universal directive).

They're unable to absolve the sin of abortion but able to absolve the sins of pedophilia and murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

potential societal ill.

I promise to take my BP pills and stay out of this conversation.