The Catholic Church in Resistance: Priests, Child Abuse, and Breaking the Seal of the Confessional
The tradition is represented as noble, the confiding link between confessor and penitent, a bridge never to be broken, even under pain of death. Taken that way, the confessional is brandished as the Catholic Church’s great weapon against the wiles and predations of secular power. The State shall have no say where the priest’s confidence is concerned, for all may go to him to seek amends. “The sacramental seal,” goes the relevant code of canon law, “is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for the confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
Those points certainly have merits, even if these seem a touch faded after the sex abuse imbroglio the Church has found itself in. Confession, which functions as a barometric reading of Catholic guilt, has developed its own succour and relish, an ecosystem of ritual and understanding resistant to the prying of the criminal law. Not merely does its ironclad protection provide a dispensation from the laws of the land in certain troubling cases; the confession, in effect, serves as an economy of ordered guilt, reassurance for the next binge of sin. To remove it, or at the very least heavily qualify it, would be an unsettling challenge to a distinct Weltanschauung.
The process effectively permits all – including erring priests – to engage the process from either side of the grille. Historically, the process also imperilled children. Pope Pius X, in decreeing in 1910 that confession should commence at the tender age of seven, permitted an army of celibates access to vulnerable, an in certain instances titillating flesh.
Legislators troubled by the enduring force and fascination with the seal of the confessional have gotten busy, most notably in Australia. This was prompted, in no small part, by the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. “We are satisfied,” went the Australian report, “that confession is a forum where Catholic children have disclosed their sexual abuse and where clergy have disclosed their abusive behaviour in order to deal with their own guilt.”
One recommendation specifies that institutions “which have a religious confession for children should implement a policy that requires the rite only to be conducted in an open space within the clear line of sight of another adult.” But the members of the Royal Commission went beyond the spatial logistics of the confessional. Institutional jolting was required.
Each state and territory government, argued Commission members, should pass legislation creating “a criminal offence of failure to report targeted at child sexual abuse in an institutional context”. This, it was suggested, would extend to “knowledge gained or suspicions that are or should have been formed, in whole or in part, on the basis of information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession.” The law would also exclude existing excuses, protections or privileges.
Despite treading delicately, such recommendations were not merely matters for demurral by the Church, but considerations to be sneered at from the summit of spiritual snobbery. President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart reduced the matter to one of neat sophistry veiled by religious freedom. “Confession in the Catholic Church,” he reasoned in August last year, “is a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” being “a fundamental part of the freedom of religion”.
Hart’s protestations did not go heeded in the South Australian legislature, making it the first in Australia to legally oblige priests to report confessions of child abuse from October 1. Omitting to do so will result in a fine of $10,000. Bishop of Port Pirie and acting Adelaide Archbishop Greg O’Kelly, much in Hart’s vein, saw the move as having “much wider implications for the Catholic Church and the practice of the faith.” Such comments could only come across as archaic and insensitive, given the conviction of his predecessor, Archbishop Philip Wilson, for concealing child sex abuse.
More to the point, the remarks by Bishop O’Kelly are brazenly selfish, permitting the priest an all-exclusive gold card for reasons of amendment, “that the penitent actually is sincere about wanting forgiveness, is sincere about anting reparation”. The conspicuous absentee here is the victim, always abstracted, if not totally hidden, by matters of the spirit.
While accounts such as John Cornwell’s, whose stingingly personal The Dark Box makes the sensible point that abolishing the confession and its lusty pull would essentially address the problem, the Church is already finding fewer penitents. In a sense, it is already losing the appeal, the allure, and even the danger, of the confessional. Musty physical convention has given way to digital releases and outpouring. Social media, crowned by the confessional fetish that is Facebook, takes the disturbed soul and expresses it to the globe.
From the vacuity of the Kardashian phenomenon to the newly enlisted grandparent keen to reflect on banal deeds, these platforms have stolen an irresistible march on those in the land of Catholicity. Such confessions of sin or achievement – the distinctions are not always clear – have become the preserve of Mark Zuckerberg and his technicians, rather than a local priest desperate to remain relevant. But that age-old resistance against the laws of the civic secular domain remains the Church of Rome’s stubborn, practised specialty. The elusive spirit, in dialogue with an unverified Sky God, continues to be its invaluable alibi for crimes of the flesh.
428 total views, 2 views today
7 commentsLogin here Register here
“Confession in the Catholic Church,” he [Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart] reasoned in August last year, “is a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” being “a fundamental part of the freedom of religion”.
Uhm …. as a lapsed Protestant why do any penitents have to use a priest? Why can’t they communicate directly with their God?
I mean, The Prophet in Islam clearly recognised the greed and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church about 600AD and rejected the intervention of priests.
About 900 years later, Henry VIII of England, for pecuniary reasons also rejected the self-given right of religious to challenge the supremacy of the King; and stripped the allegedly celibate clergy of their wealth and power over individuals.
Then both reformers demanded and achieved the Koran and Bible respectively be translated into the native language of their respective communities, leading to an increase in literacy and academic skills for both.
Every person will form their own religious views, hopefully after wide reading of available texts and the science of Egyptian mummification practices.
Will people ever get to realise that religions were initiated, developed and maintained solely as a means of subjugating the general community.
Taking advantage of the superstitions and fears of people who needed some kind of explaination of the forces of nature which impinged on them, those with a little more knowledge of the frailties of their peers invented the concepts of gods and the priestly intermediaries needed for divine benevolence.
The most successful and enduring scams of all time.
How many children have experienced that spiritual encounter with god through the priests penis??
Possibly fewer than gained the same from the violent and demonic ministrations of nuns in Catholic boarding schools.
I know a few women who have emerged all twitter and bisted from such institutions.
The cement of the churches is faith. No matter how the men of the church bleat about truth they are unable to act nor argue with reason that may be at odds with their faith. People like the rabbott are frightened to hear anything against their faith and get others to read and censor left wing reports.
They need to join the lawyer style if you confess guilt to me I cannot defend you but we can both lie out arse off ta not guilty plea.
Still as long as the men of the jew dased religions, keep their women indoctrinated and satisfied with a male god, the church will stand.
Personally the the jewish, christian and muslim men are arrogant arseholes or ignorant wimps and their women are receptacles.
Good one draken invented by men for men
I have asked Archbishop Hart several times on his response to 1 Timothy 2 verse 5, but have yet to receive a reply.
To quote Seneca, ” religion is seen by the wise as false, by the common people as true and by the rulers as useful.”