Seal of confession issues often misunderstood

Code of Canon Law books for the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are pictured in Rome at the Pontifical Oriental Institute Sept. 15. Pope Francis ordered changes to the Latin Code of Canon Law to harmonize the laws of the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches on several issues involving the sacraments of baptism and marriage. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-LATIN-EASTERN-CANONS Sept. 15, 2016.

A New Zealand canon lawyer has discussed, in a peer-reviewed book, the Church’s law on the seal of confession, with particular reference to sexual abuse of minors.

Msgr Brendan Daly, judicial vicar for the Tribunal of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, had a paper published in Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 2018  (Washington DC: Canon Law Society of America) last year.

Msgr Daly stated in the paper that many issues concerning the seal of confession are misunderstood.

Among the matters discussed in the paper were the seal of confession relating to penitents who are victims of sexual abuse and to penitents who are sexual abusers.

In all cases, sins confessed and the identity of the penitent who confessed these sins come under the seal (which applies to the priest/confessor, but not to the penitent). A priest who breaks the seal of the confessional incurs an automatic excommunication and other canonical penalties.

But in the case of an abuser, “priests can delay or even deny absolution to a paedophile confessing his sin of sexual abuse of minors”, Msgr Daly wrote.

“ . . . [P]enitents, such as paedophiles, who are judged by the confessor to have no real intention of reforming and avoiding the occasions of sin, can have absolution deferred or refused until the confessor judges their intention of amendment to be sincere,” he wrote, citing Canon 978 §1, which states that, in hearing confessions, the priest is a minister of divine justice and mercy.

Msgr Daly cited The (UK) Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) Procedures Manual as an example: “When the nature of the abuse disclosed is criminal, the penitent should be directed to bring the matter to the attention of the statutory authorities and informed that the diocesan safeguarding commission can help in making any necessary contacts. The confessor should ask for action consistent with a firm purpose of amendment as a constituent part of an assigned penance. The penitent’s agreement to act in a way consistent with a firm purpose of amendment provides evidence of a proper disposition for the reception of absolution.”

If a priest receives knowledge of abuse outside of sacramental confession, the seal does not apply and the priest has an obligation to report the abuse, Msgr Daly added.

An expert witness at the recent Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, psychiatrist Associate Professor Carolyn Quadrio, last year told the ABC that she agreed with clergy views that confessions of sexual abuse were extremely rare.

“Clinically, I must say I’ve got the same experience as [Jesuit] Father Frank Brennan who said, I think recently, that in his 30 years as a priest no one had ever confessed (child sexual abuse) to him and I think the same from the point of view of a psychiatrist,” Associate Professor Quadrio told ABC’s The Drum programme.

“People who are abusing children don’t generally go and tell the priest that they’re doing it.”

But one horrendous example was cited by Australian media last year – Catholic priest Michael McArdle made a sworn affidavit in 2004 in which he stated he had confessed to sexually assaulting children 1500 times to 30 different priests over a 25-year period in face-to-face confessions.

Victims in confession

Also in his paper, Msgr Daly discussed the situation of when a victim of sexual abuse comes to confession. Such a penitent might think that the seal applies to everything said on the occasion of going to confession, he wrote.

But the seal of confession does not apply to matters that are not sinful, he noted.

Msgr Daly set out a hypothetical story by way of example.

“A 13-year-old boy came to confession and on his way, is knocked off his bike by a car whose driver did not stop. When he comes to the confessional the boy tells the priest about the incident. The priest would not be breaking the seal of confession if he phoned the police or the boy’s parents and told them that the boy had been a victim of a hit-and-run accident. The boy had done nothing wrong. What happened to him was not a sin on his part. He is an innocent victim and needs help. Similarly, if a boy, for example, has been sexually abused, he has not committed any sin. He is an innocent victim and needs help.”

Msgr Daly wrote that priests must make clear to victims who are penitents “when sexual abuse is not covered by the seal of confession”.

“The priest must advise the penitent/victim to seek help and to inform civil authorities. The priest could accompany the child to speak to its parents, to see the police, and could help the child inform authorities.”

The seal of confession has been a topic of much debate, and of legislative moves concerning mandatory reporting laws in some Australian states.

The royal commission in Australia recommended (recommendation 7.4) that mandatory reporting laws not exempt child sexual abuse disclosed to a religious minister even in confession. The Australian bishops replied that while it is committed to safety of children and vulnerable persons, the seal of the confessional is inviolable. So far, South Australia has passed a law as recommended by the royal commission, and a similar law will come into effect in the Australian Capital Territory in March (subject to a review by a former federal court judge). A draft law has reportedly been prepared in Tasmania.

The Australian church’s Truth Justice and Healing Council recommended that research should be commissioned “ . . . probably in conjunction with the Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand, concerning . . . the theological underpinning of, and the practices relating to the delivery of the sacrament with particular reference to the seal of the confessional and the extent to which reporting obligations can be complied with and, allied with it, the theology of the child”.

The Australian royal commission also recommended (recommendation 16.26) that the Australian Catholic bishops “should consult with the Holy See, and make public any advice received, in order to clarify whether: a/. Information received from a child during the sacrament of reconciliation that they have been sexually abused is covered by the seal of confession; and b/. If a person confesses during the sacrament of reconciliation to perpetrating child sexual abuse, absolution can and should be withheld until they report themselves to civil authorities.”

It is understood that the Australian bishops are in consultation with the Holy See on these matters.

According to lawyer Fr Frank Brennan, SJ, writing on the Eureka Street website last year, there are differing opinions among Australian bishops as to the limits on the seal of confession.

While all agreed that sins confessed and the identity of the sinner come under the seal, there is debate on other matters, for instance whether matters which are not sinful that are raised in the confessional come under the seal or not. Some bishops, for instance Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney, have been seen to argue that they do.

According to an ABC report in 2017, Archbishop Fisher, responding to a question at the royal commission about a hypothetical little girl called Sally reporting abuse in the confessional, said: “I respect that child whose trust in adults is already terribly damaged.”

“Even little children have spiritual rights, if they come to confession and it all tumbles out, whatever is in their heart, they know whatever they’ve said, they’ve said to God, and it won’t be repeated.”

Archbishop Fisher said he would try to persuade “Sally” to talk to authorities outside the seal of confession, but if he could not persuade her, her discussion would remain confidential.

Fr Brennan gave an example of his own position to the royal commission: “ . . . . [A] little girl Sally who comes to confession and tells me that she stole the jelly beans and that her stepfather did something nasty to her. I said that I could never reveal or act upon Sally’s confession of having stolen the jelly beans, but I could act on Sally’s assertion about her stepfather in the same way as I could if the assertion were made outside the confessional. It would be a matter of pastoral prudence and care for Sally and her family.”

Fr Brennan responded to Archbishop Fisher’s position by stating that “taken to its logical conclusion, [his] claim would render me liable to automatic excommunication if I were to reveal that it’s raining in Melbourne today and I know this because Sally told me in confession”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fb-share-icon
Posted in

Michael Otto

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. John says

    Very little relevant comment is applicable given the attendance by parishioners at confession, termed in many places as “reconciliation”, and the trend away from the kneeler behind the screen, to priest and penitent sitting and facing each other.
    Given the laxity of parishioners in mass attendance, this adds to the paucity of penitents.
    One priest in WA Fr Tim Deeter spoke of how, if a penitent said it was more than four weeks since their last confession, they came from a neighbouring parish. He was a strong Medjugorje supporter. In Medjugorje, there is a powerful engine for restoration to Sacramental life, but also to the foundation to both asceticism and mysticism, which have been neglected in recent times.
    Lenten observances have been changed from daily penance to two days in Lent.
    Until there is a return to traditional practices, Sacramental rites may dwindle, quite in contrary to the warnings given at Montichiari, and Garabandal, Akita, and Medjugorje.
    The slithery slide into baser TV and video exposure must also continue as time goes on.
    This can easily be fixed by faithful taking up the initiative and observing initiatives of their own that are regular weekly acts of asceticism and mysticism, fasting and deeper prayer, with listening skills.
    Then “church’ can be slowly rebuilt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *