Ö÷²¥´óÐã

There is a bit of a difference between sacramental confession and other confidential situations. The very purpose of confession is to tell your sins - it's not incidental to some other talking - and that might mean murder or adultery or child abuse. It couldn't possibly function if there was a possibility that the priest might break the seal.

With lawyers, they can't break confidence, but neither can they allow their client to perjury.

With phone lines I imagine there are circumstances when they should break confidence - but the downing street story was clearly not one of them.

It seems to me that if a Catholic Priest were to confess to his bishop that he has an insatiable, uncontrollable, and unresolvable drive to sexually abuse children, this puts the bishop in an untenable position. Which is the greater immorality, to reveal the Priest's confession and possibly to take actions which suggest this to outside observers by putting him beyond the reach of children on the one hand, or to do nothing or simply shuffle the priest from one parish to another as has been done leaving his future victims to suffer the consequences on the other hand? And what happens when the bishop confesses his own guilt to his Monseignieur? What does he do? I'm glad that's not my problem.

I don't think there has been any suggestion in the recent cases that priests confessed abuse to their bishops in a sacramental confession. By and large it is best for priests or bishops not to hear the confessions of those directly under their authority for this very reason.

"By and large it is best for priests or bishops not to hear the confessions of those directly under their authority for this very reason."

But can they refuse if the priest wants to confess. Can a bishop deny a priest the "blessing" of confession? Anyway, any priest will make confession to someone else in the Catholic clergy. They will have the same problem even if they are not administratively responsible, they remain morally responsible. It's a dilemma. Of course there is the flip side of the coin. If they don't confess, don't they automatically go to hell for their sins under Catholic teaching? Isn't that the whole point of confession to be absolved of sin?

They can refuse to hear a confession if it is not appropriate for them to hear it. For example - seminary authorities should not hear the confessions of seminarians, since they have to make decisions about their suitability for ordination.

Another priest doesn't have a moral responsibility so long as he does his job properly in confession. If a priest were to tell a penitent that their sin isn't a sin, then he becomes partly responsible for the penitent's future sins - e.g. all those priests who tell people contraception or abortion or fornication is okay become morally responsible in part for the future sins of the penitent. But a priest who hears the confession of another priest who confesses child abuse isn't responsible for the future sins of that priest unless he somehow tells him it's okay or neglects to advise him on the seriousness of his sin. That's the deal with the seal of confession. Once you start breaking it it becomes worthless, for who would confess serious sin if they thought the priest would report them?

Sinners must confess to God NOT sinful man.

James 5:16

What about James chapter 5:16.

If you think that means the confessional box, nope!.

John - the sacrament of penance (confession) does not require a box...

If any person discloses to another person, in any situation, that they are absusing a child, he os she should be reported to the Police. When this is done it saves the child and..... ironically, it saves the organisation those individuals belong to. If they fail to do so then the organisation is not worth saving.

Regards
DK

I’m curious….. what happens if an individual discloses for example that he/she abuses children to a medical GP, psychiatrist or psychologist, are they duty bound to report the matter to the police?

DK

David - the short answer to your precise question is "no".