The systematic abuse of children in the Catholic Church. Why the 'confessional seal' allow

Introduction

I was one of about 100 people who attended the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Sydney recently.[1] I wanted to see and hear the five metropolitan archbishops give their evidence about the Catholic Church's response to this insidious culture of abuse that existed (and still exists in my opinion) within the Catholic Church. I say still exists because having been in the seminary in 'formation' for the Catholic priesthood[2] I obtained a unique view into the process of how 'spiritual direction' (or lack thereof) is used as a "tool" to control what is being confessed and to whom.

I am convinced that many dubiously termed ‘sacrosanct' practices within the Church have caused this ill to proliferate, celibacy is also a major factor but the confessional is equally a big part of the problem.

The Church at the highest levels of governance must uproot and eradicate this cancer. Child abuse is not adequately repudiated in the Church and breaches are not sufficiently codified within canon law. The root of the problem in my humble opinion is the Catholic understanding of the 'sacrament' of confession[3] and it is the focus of this paper.

The Catholic Church would have us believe that the sacrament of confession is such a sacrosanct seal and so beyond the realm of civil scrutiny, priests would rather suffer persecution to themselves (or their body) than give up the 'sacred seal'. In other words, they would prefer to ‘protect’ an abuser than reveal the truth to protect a victim (or future victims). In the Roman Catholic Church, the Seal of Confession is purported to be the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the sacrament of confession.

I will posit that the [current and historical] policy of the confessional seal is untenable, unwarranted and effectively unchristian. I shall use each in a subheading to unpack my controversial thesis commencing with a section on the Catholic dichotomy of ‘sin’.

The Catholic Dichotomy of Sin.

Catholic’s split sin into two; mortal and venial sins, even if there is absolutely no biblical or theological grounding for the Catholic understanding. Catholics explain their rationale in detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

No. 1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture [citation 1 Jn 16-17] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

No. 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Catholic’s also profess that venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it?

No. 1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation: When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbour, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbour, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

No. 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

The apostle Paul (lawyer and convert to Christianity) made sure not to miss anything from his own 'sins' list, the Church also considers many ancillary matters that would fall under the category of ‘grave matter’ and constitute a ‘mortal sin’ and they include:

- Sacrilege

- Atheism

- Perjury and False Oaths

- Failure to attend to the ‘Sunday Obligation’ of worship.

- Abortion

- Euthanasia

- Suicide

- Scandal

- Drug Abuse

- Gluttony

- Terrorism

- Extreme Anger

- Hatred

- Extortion

- Divorce

- Pornography

- Prostitution

- Rape

- Homosexual Acts

- Incest

- Masturbation

- Theft

- Cheating

- Defrauding a worker of his wages

- Unfair Wagers

- Taking advantage of the Poor

- Adulation

- Lust

- Avarice

Quite an exhaustive list if one is seeking to achieve the ‘puritanical’ life. Just imagine how many times priests have absolved any and all people of these sins without even blinking an eyelid? Or feeling any need to report a crime?

Those who have studied Criminal Law in Australia (Archbishop Fisher being one such luminary) would know of the Common Law division of culpability in crime. Guilt or culpability in the legal/criminal sense is broken up into the Actus Reas (the unlawful act) and the Mens Rea (the mental element). It would seem that the Catholic dichotomy of mortal and venial sin almost accords with that same division, as such it is only mortal sin which requires a penitent to enter into the confessional seal to have this sin ‘absolved’.

According to Catholic doctrine and dogma only a priest holds the power to absolve, as such, unless the mortal sin is ‘confessed’ and ‘absolved’ the penitent ‘will not go to heaven when they die’.

If you think the rigidity of such a notion is binary and arbitrary, you’re not the only one. Not only does it ‘remove’ from consideration the divine prerogative (to forgive), it makes the very bold statement: “only Catholics are going to heaven”, because they are the only one’s who can ‘adequately confess their sins’ to the God who created the universe and everything in it.

I can’t think of anything more odious, other than perhaps Jews calling themselves “the chosen people” and portraying themselves as ‘God’s favorites’ sharing some 'intimate' and close relationship with God? It really doesn't take mush to see where the Catholic's get it from.

The Untenable factor

Church doctrine which upholds this (alleged) 'secret' seal is relevantly contained in Canons 983 & 984 of the Code of Canon Law (the Catholic Church’s written rules) and applies as follows:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason. §2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded. §2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.[4]

The Church has upheld this standard of ‘secrecy’ in the confessional dating back to the jurist Gratian, its author. He compiled the edicts of previous Catholic Ecumenical Councils and the principles of church law, which were published in the Decretum[5] in about 1151. It includes the following declaration with regard to the seal of confession:

"Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed."

Gratian goes on to state that the violator of this law should be made a lifelong, ignominious wanderer[6]. This is further cemented in Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), binding on the whole church, which laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:

"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance”[7]

That the twelfth century Church should use such 'legalistic' interpretation to this sacrament is no surprise. It is the height of the Church's control both civilly and religiously in an ‘enchanted world’ which saw that many odious excesses in the rank and status of clergy culminating in simony, favoritism, nepotism and largess. So unpalatable were these excesses it spawned the most damaging split in the Church in history, namely the Reformation.

The protection of the clergy–penitent privilege relationships rests on one of the more basic privileges as strong or stronger than the similar clauses to confidentiality between lawyer and client.[8]

For the Church to uphold such a morally repugnant and antiquated policy to protect child predators in in their midst in 2017 is simply untenable taken the widespread and prolific abuse of children which has come to light in recent years. It was shockingly revealed at the Royal Commission that same week that more than 7% of Catholic priests in Australia were accused of child sex abuse[9] resulting in 4,444 reported incidents[10]. That figure obviously does not record those who did not report their abuse and so therefore the real figure must be much higher.

The Archbishops at the hearing used many revealing phases to describe the Church's failures:

"Hopelessly inadequate." Archbishop Costelloe.[11]

"Scandalously inefficient." Archbishop Wilson.[12]

Archbishop Fisher[13] went as far as calling it "Criminally negligent".

Archbishop Coleridge[14] called it a "Colossal failure of leadership" and a "culture" within the Church".

If this level of admission was not enough, each archbishop categorically denied the Church’s systems and practices (such as the confessional or celibacy) were conducive to the proliferation of this abhorrent conduct. It seems to me the Archbishop's are living in 'la la land'.

They were asked by the Commission what they have done to address the “problem”; Archbishop Fisher said he was "writing on the internet and lots of different formats a joint letter of apology". Archbishop Hart[15] now expresses “how gravely he feels sorry" despite showing little or no respect for victims, Archbishop Coleridge said "in various ways I have sought to offer an apology" and Archbishop Costelloe is now "listening in private meetings, offering expressions of apology, shame etc" by those making a complaint.

I have absolutely no doubt the reason priests got away with this for so long is because of the confessional seal, and this 'seal' operated as a 'secret society' to keep crimes un-exposed.

Many of these perpetrators went to the confessional to "admonish" themselves and their heinous crimes. The problem is, they got the ear of a sympathetic listener (whom they knew) was equally as guilty of the same or similar crimes, hence they absolve one another. This practice (most unacceptably) continues till today and it is the main reason that I will posit: the systematic abuse of innocent children in the Catholic Church happens because of the confessional and not, despite it.

The Catholic confessional seal is untenable in today's society of open, transparent and accountable government and not just by civil standards but also by religious (specifically Christian) standards that I shall elaborate more on in this paper.

The Unwarranted Factor

My research on the confessional 'seal' reveals that it emanated from a period (11th to 16th century) when priests and bishops held a position in society similar to that of modern day administrators and solicitors.

We see a remnant of it in the 'client/lawyer' confidentiality provisions currently used in most jurisdictions in all liberal democracies. Although, with one very important differentiation, being, a solicitor is first and foremost an 'officer of the court' and is duty bound to the civil courts to uphold an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system. This includes all judges, the solicitors who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel associated with the 'administration of justice'.

To be clear, a solicitor cannot defend (in court) the innocent plea of a client if he/she knows (or has had disclosed to him/her) the guilt of the accused's offence. In swearing in to become a legally practicing solicitor in any Australian jurisdiction, a solicitor 'swears under oath/or affirmation' to uphold the aforementioned principles in the interests of the 'administration of justice'[16]. Catholic priests are under no such obligation and it is a glaring (and unacceptable) omission in my view.

The God that priests profess to 'represent' in the confessional is just as concerned for the pursuit of 'justice' in society as the civil authorities. Scripture, not least the beatitudes has Jesus saying in verse six: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.”

To try to posit the contrary, would be to discredit and completely downplay the significance of Jesus’ words and It would represent an incongruence to the overall 'Christian' message, It is therefore untenable even on theological grounds.

The Unchristian Factor

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (part three in Life with Christ) describes and defines 'sin' amongst other things as:

No. 1849 Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

No. 1850 Sin is an offence against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (my emphasis)

I shall deal only with that last description as being "diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus".

There is no doubt that Jesus urged his disciples to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" it is recorded in all the Synoptic Gospels.[17]

As most progressive Christians I read the phrase to amongst other things, respect state authority and to pay the taxes it demands of them but I also believe it places an added obligation on all citizens (religious and non) to uphold the efficacy of the Criminal code in each respective jurisdiction.

The Apostle Paul (as discussed earlier is considered the most important and quoted subject in Christianity) also states in Romans 13 that Christians are obliged to obey all earthly authorities, as they were introduced by God, and disobedience to them equates to disobedience to God. Jesus asked his interrogators to produce a coin in order to demonstrate to them that by using his coinage they had already admitted the de facto rule of the emperor, and that therefore they should submit to that rule.

Furthermore the invocation in John 8:32 “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” seems an impossible ideal if the actual Church policy requires concealment?

But what does this rule require of the Catholic Church in 2017? Not an unreasonable or unwarranted undertaking in my view. The same standards it expects of any organisation dealing with children, first and foremost:

a) respect and adherence of the ‘Rule of Law’ and that none are in any way 'above it'.

b) mandatory reporting of all incidences of alleged child abuse, and

c) a standard that meets community expectations (no different or incompatible from that espoused by Jesus himself.)

Jesus said much about children, the most important among them would have to be in Matt 18:6:

"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”

According to Jesus, a priest is supposed to be an exemplar representative of God and someone of upright moral character. Yet the Catholic Church’s ‘system’ enforces a policy and procedure capable of allowing predators of children to be protected and emboldened.

There can be no greater inconsistency and hypocrisy to their stated mission.

Conclusion

In his ministry, Jesus showed striking interest in and love for children, often including them in his teaching, to the surprise of his disciples:

“The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven’” (Matt 19:13–14). When the disciples came to Jesus asking him which one of them was going to be the greatest in Christ’s kingdom, Jesus called a child to himself (Matt. 18:2) and said, “whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:4). Jesus went on, telling his followers that part of their duty is to receive little children: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me” (Matt. 18:5).

Civil authorities that require the utmost care and attention towards children are doing this in the interests of the ‘common good’ it just also happens to be the work of God and in almost all cases secular authorities are doing it far better job of it than the very organisation purporting to represent the man and ideal that first espoused these principles.

The Catholic confessional which has absolved so many of these guilty priests continues to use this ‘seal’ to ‘conceal’ and this is unacceptable.

What is so sad about this odious church policy is that the good priests who have cause to hear such an abominable crime in the confessional are powerless to react as they would most certainly be ‘pushed out’ of the church for seeking to reveal such crimes and breaking this 'seal'.

This MUST change.

The archbishops, their auxiliaries, the other bishops and priests of the Catholic Church in Australia and around the world right up to the pope must submit to a civil requirement for full and mandatory disclosure of ALL crimes uttered in the confessional.

One very simple way to achieve this would be to have priests adhere to the same levels of mandatory disclosure as do all other practitioners in the educational, medical or legal sectors.

A small sign posted at the confessional entrance stating the priests obligations under civil law would truly ‘absolve’ the priest of any suggestion of ‘betrayal’ of the penitent, he would (effectively) be upholding the laws of both Caesar and God and not that of a ‘secret society’.

References

[1] (23/2/2017)

[2] (1991-1993 & 2008-2009)

[3] Also known as Reconciliation when referred to in Church doctrine.

[4] The canon law of the Catholic Church (Latin: jus canonicum) is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

[5] The Decretum Gratiani, also known as the Concordia discordantium canonum or Concordantia discordantium canonum, is a collection of Canon law compiled and written in the 12th century as a legal textbook by the jurist known as Gratian.

[6] Secunda pars, dist. VI, c. II

[7] Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"

[8] Richard N. Olstling; J.Madeleine Nash/Chicago:Martin Casey/Miami (Oct 1984: 2008). "Confidence and the Clergy". Time U.S.

[9] Counsel Gail Furness, SC, said 4,444 alleged child sex abuse incidents were recorded in the survey. 90% of the victims were boys, with their average age at time of abuse being 11 ½, Girls were only 10 ½ years old on average when they were abused.

[10] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/child-sex-abuse-royal-commission:-data-reveals-catholic-abuse/8243890

[11] Timothy John Costelloe SDB (born 3 February 1954 in Melbourne), an Australian metropolitan bishop, is the ninth Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Perth, Western Australia, appointed in February 2012.

[12] Philip Wilson was a priest in Maitland (Hunter Region). He was appointed a bishop in 1996 as Bishop of Wollongong. In 2001 he was appointed the eighth Archbishop of Adelaide. In 2006, Archbishop Wilson was made President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, re-elected in 2008 and also served a further two-year term concluding in 2012.[13] Anthony Colin Fisher OP (born 10 March 1960) is a friar of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). As of 12 November 2014, he was appointed the ninth Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. He served as the third Bishop of Parramatta from 4 March 2010 to 12 November 2014, having previously served as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Sydney.

[14] Mark Benedict Coleridge (born 25 September 1948, Melbourne, Victoria) is an Australian Catholic bishop. Since 11 May 2012 he has served as the seventh Archbishop of Brisbane. He was the Archbishop of Canberra–Goulburn (2006–12) and an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne (2002–06).

[15] Denis James Hart (born 16 May 1941) since 2001 he has been the 8th Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, he is also currently the President of the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference (ACBC)

[16] Uniform Conduct, Practicing & CPD Rules for Solicitors 2015 & Gianarelli (1988) 165 CLR 543, 578 (Brennan J). In all jurisdictions, this oath or affirmation requires the candidate to declare that they will well and honestly conduct themselves in the practice of their profession, as members of the legal profession and officers of the court. It is the taking of the oath or affirmation, and the signing of the roll that marks the transition from simply holding a law degree to being a lawyer. The practitioner’s role is not merely to push his or her client’s interests in the adversarial process, rather the practitioner has a duty to ‘assist the court in the doing of justice according to law.

[17] Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26

26