“The current governor of Washington is Bob Ferguson, who is Catholic. He signed into law a bill, Senate Bill 5375, that the Department of Justice is investigating for potential First Amendment violations.” Remember, he appealed to his late Fr Uncle, SJ, when discussing the bill in the media?
He didn't really appeal to his uncle, who I am certain would not have wanted this. He appealed to his own Catholicism (evidenced by the fact his uncle is a priest) which he seems to think shields him from criticism.
Honestly, if you sign legislation attacking the seal of the confessional, that should be grounds for excommunication. You can't attack the sacraments and then play the "I'm a 'Good Catholic'"[to use Joe Biden's phrase] card. Pick one.
You posited that there was no evidence that the seal of the confessional had ever been used to hide abuse. You should look at a recent complaint filed against several priests at Marmion Academy. In the 80s, a student at the then boarding military boys school confessed that a priest was abusing him. The priest broke the seal to tell his Abbott who allegedly instructed the priest to hear the boy’s confession again while the Abbott listened in. The Abbott then told the boy to treat the issue as dead and presumably did nothing g else or at least not enough. While the seal was broken, it comes close enough to your issue and certainly uses confession to avoid taking real action.
For those who have a strong-ish stomach, there's a show on Netflix called "Beef" that is quite good. Caveat spectator, of course, as it really earns its TV-MA rating on a number of levels. But my husband and i, who have very different taste in media, both truly enjoyed it and thought it seemed to inhabit a moral universe in which grace is constantly operating and yet mostly being foolishly and stubbornly resisted. It made me think of Flannery O'Connor. There's a profound scene that takes place in a Korean- American evangelical church that has some of the finest acting I've ever seen. And then, O'Connor-esque, the character who experiences the profound moment of grace goes on to use the church as a base of operations for a crime ring.
I absolutely think children who are abused and trying to “be good” will confess sexual abuse towards them because they equate shame with sin. Most children think it’s somehow their fault if they are being abused. In fact that is how many abusers try to shame them into silence, telling them that it was because the child was provocative or made them do it. And the shame and pain they feel make them feel separated from God and dirty, so the only thing they can do is to confess to try to feel clean again. I don’t have evidence that priests are receiving these types of “confession” but I do think it’s very reasonable it’s happening based on abuse psychology in the mind of children.
iirc, my previous diocese has a social worker come run a workshop for seminarians on this possibility and (non-seal-breaking) ways to handle it, eg. reassuring the child it's not their fault, helping them identify an adult they trust and making a plan to get help, etc.
I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, but it’s also the safety of the confessional seal that allows victims to get over the initial stage of naming out loud what is happening. No, priests can’t tell the police, but they also can’t tell the perpetrator. For some victims thats the first time they can say it out loud and put the perpetrator’s lies to bed about what will happen if they tell. And it is not a simple thing to just go to the police if it’s a family member abusing you. It usually means blowing up your family when it all comes out. Or blowing up your community, school, sports team etc.
When these attempts at legislating pop up in Australia, usually about once every decade or so, just about every priest of every political stripe will go on record saying I’ll happily go to jail to protect my penitents. That united front is usually enough to stare down the bill.
Very surprised to hear you say you think it's so unlikely that abuse would get brought up in the confessional. I don't know a lot about the psychology of perpetrators, but I imagine at least some of them make many attempts to curtail the impulses and behavior, and confessing could be part of that process for them. Anyway, mandatory reporter laws are meant to catch edge cases and unexpected scenarios, to make sure that signals don't get missed. I don't think that means confession shouldn't be privileged, but I think the case needs to be made on the basis of the meaning of confession as a religious practice, not because it could somehow never happen.
I posted about this in the main news post on this story: My understanding after some modest internet research is that several states (New Hampshire and West Virginia seem to be two) make priests mandatory reporters and don't explicitly exempt confession or carve out any kind of pastor/congregant privilege. I don't know if bishops opposed those laws or lobbied for carve-outs within them at the time of their passage, but now that they're in force, it appears that a priest could hypothetically be prosecuted for not revealing evidence of abuse that came up during confession. I wonder what bishops in these areas tell their priests about that. I have to assume there's some kind of unstated assumption that this scenario just isn't going to be pressed by law enforcement and prosecutors, in the unusual case where it might come up.
I honestly just assumed before looking into it that the seal of confession was consistently protected in laws like this, and if it had ever been endangered this way that bishops would be screaming loudly and constantly about it. I can't seem to suss out on Google if that happened at the time, but now it appears that the laws have been put in place and there is quiet acceptance of it.
The issue of the confessional seal was foundational in the case against the Church in Newfoundland. The abuse had, primarily, been committed by the Christian Brothers, over whom the bishop had no authority. The argument was presented that the abuse victims had confessed to a diocesan priest and therefore the diocese was liable. I’m not sure if that was the argument that held the day but that diocese was found responsible by the Supreme Court of Canada in July 2020.
I have to admit, i almost feel bad for whatever lawyer is going to have to defend this law before the Supreme Court if and when this makes its way there. You almost picture some poor, bedraggled soul, tie askew, finally just giving up and saying "Look, I got nothing." Meanwhile, on the other side, the guy taking on the law just has to mosey up to the bench and say "Come on. Please." The only question is will it be unanimous or 7-2.
Resident Alaskan here Re: Russian colonization in the Americas pertaining to the discussion about the San Juan islands,
There was more Russian presence on the west coast that most Americans think. The timber used to construct the Ruskie's forts in Sitka (and I believe the Ortho Cathedral as well) came from a timber outpost on the Sonoma County California coast, leading to discoveries of Russian artifacts as far inland as Utah, presumably traded between tribes time and time again. While the Spanish did not colonize the San Juan Islands, they were the first Europeans to discover them, beating the Russians by about 20 years and the British by about 50.
With respect to Washington State making pickleball the state sport, I'd just like to point out that the game was invented in Washington, so it's not completely without reason. I remember playing it in middle school gym class in the 90's. Having lived in PA the past 20 years I had forgotten about it and was really surprised when I started seeing pickleball courts become so popular!
When I went back to play the Washington state trivia segment for my wife, I realized that I totally missed you calling the University of Puget Sound the "home of the Fighting Paul Bunyans" the first time around! We both got a good chortle out of that sneaky line...
An obliquely related question to the comment on inability of the Church to require a manifestation of conscience as part of Confession. I get that. But in a sideways related topic...then how can some (arch)dioceses make it mandatory for a potential candidate to seminary to write out a"manifestation of conscience" in the application forms when it comes to their personal sexual history? I know for certain that this happens in at least 2 dioceses as I knew the vocation directors.
I told the VDs that they can't ask that of candidates as it was sinful to require them to reveal their consciences outside of the internal forum of Confession. Yet if they did not, then their application would be rejected. Their reply was basically "Well, how else can the bishop know of the candidate's integrity?"
The objective seemed to be to avoid a potential sexual abuser, thus this seems to be based on the good old ends justifies the means routine. And furthermore, besides the VD and the ordinary, the VD secretary also reviews the application for clerical reasons, so young man's sexual experiences are there for all to read (assuming he was honest or complete). Can this really be allowed?
This conversation is confusing to me because it seems like you’re saying the abusers that the law is attempting to catch ARE clerics when it actually compels clerics to break the seal and report—the abuser could be anyone. (Relative, coach, teacher, etc.) It doesn’t necessarily follow that the cleric being forced to report means that he will be reporting about another cleric. Another thing I’ve thought about since this law was signed is that although it’s easy to assume the type of abuse in question would be sexual, it doesn’t actually specify that. It could be any abuse and I suspect other kinds of abuse and neglect may be more likely to come up in confession.
“The current governor of Washington is Bob Ferguson, who is Catholic. He signed into law a bill, Senate Bill 5375, that the Department of Justice is investigating for potential First Amendment violations.” Remember, he appealed to his late Fr Uncle, SJ, when discussing the bill in the media?
He didn't really appeal to his uncle, who I am certain would not have wanted this. He appealed to his own Catholicism (evidenced by the fact his uncle is a priest) which he seems to think shields him from criticism.
Maybe “referenced” might be the right word. He definitely leaned on the fact that his uncle was a priest in justifying himself
Honestly, if you sign legislation attacking the seal of the confessional, that should be grounds for excommunication. You can't attack the sacraments and then play the "I'm a 'Good Catholic'"[to use Joe Biden's phrase] card. Pick one.
"Voodoo...chili"?
JD.
JD.
It's Voodoo Chile, like "child" but dropping the D. It rhymes with mile. It's not pronounced like the country or the pepper.
I wanted to give JD the benefit of the doubt that he was playing along with a somewhat obscure long- running joke. But alas, I think not.
I have always been clear that when it comes to pop music, I only like what I like.
You posited that there was no evidence that the seal of the confessional had ever been used to hide abuse. You should look at a recent complaint filed against several priests at Marmion Academy. In the 80s, a student at the then boarding military boys school confessed that a priest was abusing him. The priest broke the seal to tell his Abbott who allegedly instructed the priest to hear the boy’s confession again while the Abbott listened in. The Abbott then told the boy to treat the issue as dead and presumably did nothing g else or at least not enough. While the seal was broken, it comes close enough to your issue and certainly uses confession to avoid taking real action.
Good Lord. what an egregious abuse of confession. Thank you for telling me.
Absolutely. And to be clear, it is the fault of men not the Church. And absolutely a fringe case that should not be legislated.
The penalty for breaking the seal of Confession is automatic excommunication which can only be removed by the Pope.
For those who have a strong-ish stomach, there's a show on Netflix called "Beef" that is quite good. Caveat spectator, of course, as it really earns its TV-MA rating on a number of levels. But my husband and i, who have very different taste in media, both truly enjoyed it and thought it seemed to inhabit a moral universe in which grace is constantly operating and yet mostly being foolishly and stubbornly resisted. It made me think of Flannery O'Connor. There's a profound scene that takes place in a Korean- American evangelical church that has some of the finest acting I've ever seen. And then, O'Connor-esque, the character who experiences the profound moment of grace goes on to use the church as a base of operations for a crime ring.
I absolutely think children who are abused and trying to “be good” will confess sexual abuse towards them because they equate shame with sin. Most children think it’s somehow their fault if they are being abused. In fact that is how many abusers try to shame them into silence, telling them that it was because the child was provocative or made them do it. And the shame and pain they feel make them feel separated from God and dirty, so the only thing they can do is to confess to try to feel clean again. I don’t have evidence that priests are receiving these types of “confession” but I do think it’s very reasonable it’s happening based on abuse psychology in the mind of children.
iirc, my previous diocese has a social worker come run a workshop for seminarians on this possibility and (non-seal-breaking) ways to handle it, eg. reassuring the child it's not their fault, helping them identify an adult they trust and making a plan to get help, etc.
I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, but it’s also the safety of the confessional seal that allows victims to get over the initial stage of naming out loud what is happening. No, priests can’t tell the police, but they also can’t tell the perpetrator. For some victims thats the first time they can say it out loud and put the perpetrator’s lies to bed about what will happen if they tell. And it is not a simple thing to just go to the police if it’s a family member abusing you. It usually means blowing up your family when it all comes out. Or blowing up your community, school, sports team etc.
When these attempts at legislating pop up in Australia, usually about once every decade or so, just about every priest of every political stripe will go on record saying I’ll happily go to jail to protect my penitents. That united front is usually enough to stare down the bill.
Very surprised to hear you say you think it's so unlikely that abuse would get brought up in the confessional. I don't know a lot about the psychology of perpetrators, but I imagine at least some of them make many attempts to curtail the impulses and behavior, and confessing could be part of that process for them. Anyway, mandatory reporter laws are meant to catch edge cases and unexpected scenarios, to make sure that signals don't get missed. I don't think that means confession shouldn't be privileged, but I think the case needs to be made on the basis of the meaning of confession as a religious practice, not because it could somehow never happen.
I posted about this in the main news post on this story: My understanding after some modest internet research is that several states (New Hampshire and West Virginia seem to be two) make priests mandatory reporters and don't explicitly exempt confession or carve out any kind of pastor/congregant privilege. I don't know if bishops opposed those laws or lobbied for carve-outs within them at the time of their passage, but now that they're in force, it appears that a priest could hypothetically be prosecuted for not revealing evidence of abuse that came up during confession. I wonder what bishops in these areas tell their priests about that. I have to assume there's some kind of unstated assumption that this scenario just isn't going to be pressed by law enforcement and prosecutors, in the unusual case where it might come up.
I honestly just assumed before looking into it that the seal of confession was consistently protected in laws like this, and if it had ever been endangered this way that bishops would be screaming loudly and constantly about it. I can't seem to suss out on Google if that happened at the time, but now it appears that the laws have been put in place and there is quiet acceptance of it.
The issue of the confessional seal was foundational in the case against the Church in Newfoundland. The abuse had, primarily, been committed by the Christian Brothers, over whom the bishop had no authority. The argument was presented that the abuse victims had confessed to a diocesan priest and therefore the diocese was liable. I’m not sure if that was the argument that held the day but that diocese was found responsible by the Supreme Court of Canada in July 2020.
I have to admit, i almost feel bad for whatever lawyer is going to have to defend this law before the Supreme Court if and when this makes its way there. You almost picture some poor, bedraggled soul, tie askew, finally just giving up and saying "Look, I got nothing." Meanwhile, on the other side, the guy taking on the law just has to mosey up to the bench and say "Come on. Please." The only question is will it be unanimous or 7-2.
Resident Alaskan here Re: Russian colonization in the Americas pertaining to the discussion about the San Juan islands,
There was more Russian presence on the west coast that most Americans think. The timber used to construct the Ruskie's forts in Sitka (and I believe the Ortho Cathedral as well) came from a timber outpost on the Sonoma County California coast, leading to discoveries of Russian artifacts as far inland as Utah, presumably traded between tribes time and time again. While the Spanish did not colonize the San Juan Islands, they were the first Europeans to discover them, beating the Russians by about 20 years and the British by about 50.
Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
With respect to Washington State making pickleball the state sport, I'd just like to point out that the game was invented in Washington, so it's not completely without reason. I remember playing it in middle school gym class in the 90's. Having lived in PA the past 20 years I had forgotten about it and was really surprised when I started seeing pickleball courts become so popular!
When I went back to play the Washington state trivia segment for my wife, I realized that I totally missed you calling the University of Puget Sound the "home of the Fighting Paul Bunyans" the first time around! We both got a good chortle out of that sneaky line...
appropiate for the pnw to like something trendy before it's popular.
Satan never sleeps. He attacks the Church with whatever tools his mind devises.
"Phone related sins"
- Is this like disparaging ice cream sandwiches on social media?
An obliquely related question to the comment on inability of the Church to require a manifestation of conscience as part of Confession. I get that. But in a sideways related topic...then how can some (arch)dioceses make it mandatory for a potential candidate to seminary to write out a"manifestation of conscience" in the application forms when it comes to their personal sexual history? I know for certain that this happens in at least 2 dioceses as I knew the vocation directors.
I told the VDs that they can't ask that of candidates as it was sinful to require them to reveal their consciences outside of the internal forum of Confession. Yet if they did not, then their application would be rejected. Their reply was basically "Well, how else can the bishop know of the candidate's integrity?"
The objective seemed to be to avoid a potential sexual abuser, thus this seems to be based on the good old ends justifies the means routine. And furthermore, besides the VD and the ordinary, the VD secretary also reviews the application for clerical reasons, so young man's sexual experiences are there for all to read (assuming he was honest or complete). Can this really be allowed?
This conversation is confusing to me because it seems like you’re saying the abusers that the law is attempting to catch ARE clerics when it actually compels clerics to break the seal and report—the abuser could be anyone. (Relative, coach, teacher, etc.) It doesn’t necessarily follow that the cleric being forced to report means that he will be reporting about another cleric. Another thing I’ve thought about since this law was signed is that although it’s easy to assume the type of abuse in question would be sexual, it doesn’t actually specify that. It could be any abuse and I suspect other kinds of abuse and neglect may be more likely to come up in confession.
Pausing during the opening hat banter to remark that JD is personifying one line from TMBG (Ana Ng):
"I don't want the world ... I just want your half"