The latest BoingBoing post to fuel my ire:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/30/irish-catholics-object-to-child-abuse-disclosure-law.html
In this post, blogger Rob Beschizza links to an article on an Irish legal attempt to compel priests to break the Seal of Confession in cases of child abuse.
Obviously, the Church objects to such a law. Beschizza conjectures: "I wonder if it's really about the ongoing use of the sacrament to hide internal discussions of undisclosed abuses from the possibility of legal scrutiny."
Right. Because that's rampant in the confessional. Bishops are sneaking into each other's confessionals to hold secret conclaves under the Seal of Confession. That doesn't even sound canonically feasible, let alone reasonable. It also sounds like a completely paranoid view of Confession.
Priests who broke the law; priests who actively engaged in cover-ups; priests who knew what was going on outside of Confession but who did nothing to stop it -- those priests should be punished. A secular law against the Seal of Confession will not stop any of that, though.
Plus, there is the utterly mystifying logic of such a law. What good could it possibly do?
Let's say that a priest hears the confession of a child abuser. The priest has a solemn responsibility not to expose what has been confessed. It's part of his vows. Thus, it stands to reason, that only a priest who would break his vows would be willing to reveal such a sin.
A good priest, a priest who keeps vows, would not reveal the sin under any circumstance. He would rather be punished by the secular authorities than disobey God.
So what's the result of such a law? A bunch of bad priests will turn over the criminals, while a bunch of good priests will go to jail.
Next, if word gets out that Confessions are no longer protected by the Seal, then no one in their right mind would confess their sins (at least not until after they were caught). So the law would essentially render itself impractical. Priests would have nothing to report because there would be no confessions to report.
What's the point of this law, again?
Worse yet, if such a law were passed, you'd have a bunch of hidden-camera journalists posing as child molestors in Confessionals, and then reporting the priests who didn't report them. Priests would end up being punished for not reporting crimes that didn't happen.
It would be absurd.
So, if by chance, Rob Beshizza stumbles upon this blog, let me make something clear.
The purpose of the Sacrament of Confession is to offer God's spiritual forgiveness for sins. The Church doesn't even teach that this forgiveness eliminates the need for temporal punishment. But -- and this is the really important part -- as Christians, we believe that God wants to forgive all of our sins, and that He will in fact forgive any sin--no matter how vile, putrid, or harmful--so long as it is confessed with a contrite heart.
You might not believe in souls and sins and God and forgiveness. You might not think God is capable of forgiving child abusers. It's a hard idea even for believers to accept, but there it is.
Pass a law like this, and all it means is that we'll have priests being dragged into prison for testifying to God's mercy.
But was always Christ's message, wasn't it? He died to let the sinners know God was willing to forgive them, even if the world wouldn't. Christ didn't die just to save the people who committed not-so-bad sins. Christ also died for the people who really don't seem worth dying for at all.
I guess a priest going to prison for the sake of a pedophile he doesn't even know would be the modern equivalent...
But, if I had the chance to vote on it, I'd rather it not come to that.
Comments