Part two, from Tom’s reply: Father’s argument flawed
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Father Brendan Lee’s April 20 column “Protection of children up to everyone”, following on from “Sexual abuse not a church only concern” (April 13), sought to reinforce the importance of the seal of confession and justify it in relation to child sexual abuse.
The gist of it is, by breaking the seal of confession to inform police of child abuse, the sanctity of the seal of confession will be destroyed forever. “No second pedophile would ever trust a priest’s seal of confession again, no second child would either”.
But I have to wonder whether that would make much of a difference, because the church’s response to those kinds of allegations is a bit limp.
RELATED
One of the more curious parts of Lee’s defence has him point to the Royal Commission’s recommendation that priests be withheld absolution until they report themselves to police. While in theory this could work, in practice you’re left trusting the morality of child molesters to turn themselves in to police, in exchange for absolution.
Lee himself notes that “pedophiles are not remorseful enough to report themselves”.
He further acknowledges in his “burn the spiritual Amazon” bit that a child molester is “almost certainly a liar”. Based on all that, one can’t help but think a child molester in that situation, amoral and sinful as he is, might value freedom more than absolution.
So, what penalties await such a priest? The church can’t get away with shuffling them around anymore, so perhaps that priest would be defrocked - but the church isn’t going to report him, so how does that solve the problem?
Lee warns that, by breaking the seal of confession, even only once, “You could be sure you would have destroyed the spiritual Amazon for billions of others, especially children, and for the rest of history”. “Worth it to save one child?”, he asks. Well, yeah.
Only from the perspective of church dogma is the sanctity of the seal of confession more important than reporting child abuse. A priest who confesses to knowing about or participating in child abuse might by lying, sure, but he might be telling the truth. And a confession wouldn’t be admissible in court, that’s true, but that doesn’t stop you from giving police an anonymous tip which, given the subject matter, they’ll probably follow up on.
Maybe if police were better informed, they’d do a better job catching the “more illusive pedophiles” Lee talks about. I suppose “Divine Law” can’t be changed by the church, but you know what’s more important than either Church Law or Divine Law in a secular society? Human law.
If a child’s been molested, then you shouldn’t put dogma above the law no matter how many spiritual rainforests you burn down, because the law doesn’t exist to protect religious groups from following it. A priest who molests children has broken the law, and while it’s not illegal for another priest not to report it, it’s irresponsible.