In re: amazement at agreeing with Richard McBrien, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I had McBrien as a prof at ND back in the early '80's. Perhaps he's mellowing a bit? Right. And he proudly displays his mandatum at the entrance to his faculty office. His comments do make me wonder just how often Fr. McBrien returns to Bridgeport [that's his diocese, you know].
Caesar will enforce the law. When a few bishops get indicted and convicted, let us hope that their successors will be more prudential in their judgments, more considerate with their victims, and more humble and circumspect in their responses. Three cheers for the NY DA.
Fr. Brian Stanley | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 8:29 am | #

That sounds good, but would they try to have an effect on the seal of the Confessional?
Catherine | 11.19.02 - 8:29 am | #

If you have seen Bishop Daily's deposition in the Boston case, and if his [mis]handling of the case is an indication of how other bishops have acted, the record shows that the sacrament has not been exclusively used in discipline of errant priests. Caesar knows this, and won't have to go after the seal. One can reasonably conclude that there is plenty of evidence in filing cabinets and desk drawers without having to enter the confessionals. And the seal is such an ancient and respected legal principle, I cannot believe that there is any judicial stomach for overturning in the current political climate.
Fr. Brian Stanley | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 8:39 am | #

Sorry

On this one I agree with the Cardinal more than with McBrien.

As I've said before, I think that the reporting of abuse should be at the discretion of the victim (if adult) or the parents and victim (if a child)

I would support a law that required the Church (and everyone else) to report abuse to the parents so that they could act in the best interests of their child.

I know that this doesn't completely address the needs of the community but I think we should provide the child victim of abuse with the same or greater protection as that offered to adult victims of rape.
Maureen McHugh | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 10:56 am | #

I don't know what the scope of the reporting requirement are in this instance, but as a general rule, I am opposed to requiring professionals to report instances of child abuse (sexual or otherwise) to authorities. Generally, professionals of all kinds, whether they be members of the clergy, the bar, the medical profession, and so on, have an ethical duty to keep entrusted secrets of all kinds confidential, especially including criminal acts that have occured in the past. These ethical obligations are rooted in the natural law. Until recently, the law generally treated these professional duties of loyalty as sacrosanct with a few exceptions relating to ongoing acts of fraud or imminent future acts of severe bodily harm or death. I submit that bishops have certain ethical obligations to keep bona fide entrusted matters of his clergy (and his laity) secret, including past criminial acts such as child abuse.)

As I understand it, the reporting requirements for child abuse were originally designed to cover those situations where a minor under the age of consent either informs that professional or the professional discovers the abuse by examination that he or she is presently involved in a pattern of abuse. Such reporting requirements are consistent with the idea that entrusted professional secrets should only be disclosed to prevent immminent future bodily harm. The reporting requirements would not, for the most part, have covered acts of child abuse in which the child was not likely be subjected further abuse.

Would, for instance, under the new requirements, a bishop be required to report past criminal acts, including child abuse, of laity uncovered during annulment proceedings? These kinds of proceedings aren't necessarily under the seal of the confessional, but the matters which are often uncovered in the process could be of such sensitivity that one would expect the diocese to keep the matters completely confidential.

I think I might blog about this subject some in the next few weeks.

I doubt seriously that many of the bishops who kept sexual abuse allegations quiet did so because of their high-minded concern to keep confidential matters confidential: they kept things quiet, for the most part, because the sexual abuse allegations were a "problem" or a "distraction" that they wanted to "disappear." Nevertheless, I think these issues are worth raising becauase the clerical profession, (as well as other professions) can be severely damaged by these ill-advised laws to rat on those to whom one has a duty of loyalty.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 11:06 am | #

My comment above does not apply to the situation where a bishop receives information concerning a case of sexual abuse involving his priests and the information received is not in the form of an entrusted secret. There would be, in my view, no specical obligation to keep such information secret in that instance.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 11:20 am | #

As you can see, I am still thinking things through and I need to change what I just wrote slightly. Even though the scenario I mentioned in my last comment is not an entrusted secret, there may be some residual duty of loyalty that would dissuade a bishop from reporting a predator priest's past criminal acts to the authorities. If such a situation were to occur and a bishop in his judgment declined to report such a priest to the authorities, he still must fulfill his duty of loyalty to the church as a whole to protect her members against predators priests which has a higher and prior claim over the (admittedly genuine) duty of loyalty to the predator priests. It is precisely here, I think, where the breakdown has occured and where the church must "fix" the problem and not elsewhere in the "loyalty" chain.

Hope you don't mind me thinking things through on your comment board.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 11:59 am | #

It seems that DA Morgenthau is merely seeking that clergy be held to the same accountability as teachers. As a former high school teacher [before I was ordained], school administrators made very clear the obligation to report child abuse. This obligation is not only to the victim, but to the rest of the community, to prevent further abuse. If a bishop has evidence of abuse by a priest in his diocese, he has a moral if not legal obligation to the rest of the community as well as the alleged victim to report alleged abuse and turn over evidence [not under the seal of confession] to the authorities and allow competent investigators to do their duty. It is precisely in this where there has been a "breakdown," in which the common good was forsaken for some other [and lesser] objectives.
I see no higher good being served by silence, even if requested by the victim or victim's family. And it is well within the pastoral ministry of the bishop to provide for the common good by reporting to authorities, so that no loss of objectivity in the investigation can be claimed by any member of the concerned public. I don't think all the bishops understand that they're called to be good citizens as well as shepherds, at least in this particular instance of reporting abuse. So, as Mark frequently says, let Caesar do his job -- especially since some bishops do not seem up to the particular challenge of their own jobs. Unfortunately, the law of love does not have the [episcopal] enforcement behind it that the laws of Caesar have. If a bishop does not render unto God what is God's, then he shall render it unto Caesar, and probably against his will. How sad.
Fr. Brian Stanley | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 1:25 pm | #

Fr. Stanley,

Ceasar will go after the seal, of this I have no doubt. There was a bill in Connecticut just last spring that did go after the sacramental seal (Thank the Lord it didn't pass). Only Catholics think that privacy of confession is sacrosant, non-catholics hold no such tenent.

This is the first step in making good priests criminals. We are cusp of making private sacramental confessions illegal, and good priests will end up in jail.
ben | 11.19.02 - 2:04 pm | #

Father Stanley,

You state that you "see no higher good being served by silence, even if requested by the victim or victim's family."

As a parent and as a woman, I respectfully disagree with your take on this. In the case of adult rape victims, the law agrees with me.

A child is at least as emotionally fragile as an adult woman. Were my child abused, I would determine what is in the best interests of my child and that is what I would do.

It would be useful if I could consult outside authorities (including priests and doctors) in forming my judgement but, if the law disallows this, I'm stuck with only my own prudential judgment.



Maureen McHugh | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 2:25 pm | #

March 21, 2002 ???

Sorry to show up here after 11 comments but as I live in New York, let me tell you things have moved along in the 8 months since this was a "recent" headline.

To read the legislative text:


New York State Legislature
and enter S6625

I don't see a slippery slope as far as the seal of the confessional is concerned. I know of no cases of clerical sexual abuse where it was not reported because the only way that one learned of it was in a the sacrament of reconciliation. Of there are anti-Catholic bigots out there who will use any stick to beat the Church, but such is not the case with this "mandated reporter" legislation.

Patrick Sweeney | 11.19.02 - 10:52 pm | #

As a second and related item, I also believe in the sanctity of the family. I think that the authority of parents exists prior to and higher than the authority of either the Church or the State. Neither has the right to usurp this authority without just cause.



Maureen McHugh | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 12:28 am | #

In regards silence vs. reporting, I think it was Edmund Burke who said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Silence is nothing. Silence will merely cause more pain, more suffering because it allows abuse to continue unchecked. Please note that the privileged relationship between priest and penitent is sacrosanct, and I am not advocating that a priest should reveal something heard under the seal. Reporting has to do with information that comes to the bishop by means of the regular administrative channels of information. Believe me, there are letters and other documents that most bishop receive which contain information pertinent to abuse and clergy misconduct. Several [too many?] bishops have shown themselves incompetent to conduct investigations into these matters. They have not only ignored civil law, but flouted canon law as well, as we learn that each bishop has had the authority to discipline and even laicize offending priests all along. It was just a matter of using the evidence brought to them through non-sacramental means. The bishop doesn't need the approval of the victim to discipline a priest by means of canon law. I think Mark Shea's point is that if a bishop is reluctant, hesitant, ignorant or otherwise uninclined to do the right thing, then no one should stand in the way of Caesar acting in the best interest of the common good.
I understand the issues involved for the victim, for the individuals and their rights. But law, according to St. Thomas, is promulgated by proper authority for the common good, not the individual interests of particular parties whose self interest [I know that this is harsh language in describing a victim's response to abuse, but there it is] is such an emotional burden that it challenges that common good. That is what I mean by being unaware of any higher good to be served by silence.
By the way, challenges to the confessional seal have been regular throughout juris prudence, and it remains a fixture in the western legal tradition. If the seal ever is overturned, I guess I'll go to jail to protect my penitents. Then I'll be able to catch up on my reading. Maybe I would become a jailhouse lawyer.
Fr. Brian Stanley | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 6:47 am | #