Sir, – It appears to me that the Roman Catholic Church just does not seem to “get it”. The recent comments by Fr PJ Madden, and the agreement with them by the bishop’s spokesman (your report “Church and State in conflict over abuse disclosure plan”, July 15th) that the “seal of the confessional is above the law of the land” demonstrate this perfectly.
Given the egregious nature of the abuses heaped upon Ireland by this institution, and the dismal reaction of it to both the reparations promised and the new safeguards introduced to prevent a repeat, it falls upon the current Ministers to introduce the bishops and Fr Madden to the concept of a Republic and to correct their misapprehension that there is a higher authority than the law of the land. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – All of a sudden the unquestioned sanctity and secrecy of the confessional is under attack. Some have expressed alarm at what they perceive to be an assault on their faith.
Perhaps in considering whether limiting this secrecy is the right way to go forward or not, it might be helpful to look at it from an immediately human perspective. Imagine it from the point of view of your own child.
Let us say that Father X goes to Father Y for confession. There he confesses that he has been abusing several children for months now. He receives absolution. A week later he returns for confession, saying that he has stopped abusing those children but has unfortunately started abusing another child. He has had penetrative sex with a 12-year-old child. He appears truly penitent and Father Y absolves him of his sins.
But this 12-year-old is your child. Had Father Y reported the sexual abuse immediately after the first confession, your child could have been spared being raped. Father X has been absolved and his soul may still enter Heaven. Your child’s life on the other hand has been irreparably ruined. What argument is there against Father Y reporting the abuse after the first confession? If your argument against begins something like this — but where would it all end? Wouldn’t Father Y, by the argument above, have to report every single crime, making confession meaningless? — then perhaps what is already forgotten is that this is your child, unique and extraordinary, not some vague and abstract concept of a child you do not have to feel attached to or do not have to love. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – It is reported all over the front pages of the Irish press today that it is planned to prosecute priests who do not divulge the sin of child abuse told to them under the seal of confession.
As the father of a family I am as appalled as anybody else at the abuse of minors by those in positions of authority, which includes (but is by no means most prevalent among) members of the Catholic clergy. But by what insanity does the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition think it can legislate to prosecute priests who keep inviolate the unbreakable seal of the confessional?
No doctor or lawyer or other person in a position of confidence can ever be compelled to betray this. It is a very painful thing for them when they hear certain things in their professional capacity, but only a tiny dose of maturity is needed to realise that confidentiality must be respected in these special cases for the greater good of society. “Hard cases make bad laws”. And a priest especially has vowed to protect the confessional seal with his life blood – as so many have testified down the ages.
If the question of child and general sexual abuse were a simple and easy one, it would have been dealt with millenniums ago. For the huge numbers of non-renegade priests, this has always been acknowledged as one of the heaviest burdens he is likely to have to bear, when a child tells him these things in the context of confession. In the case of a guilty party confessing, the normal procedure would be to withhold absolution until the culprit has given himself up to the secular authorities – just as with certain other very serious sins.
Shame on the perpetrators of this disgraceful opportunistic suggestion.
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter proves himself unfit for the responsibility to which he has been appointed, and I demand he resign forthwith. – Is mise,
Sir, – What’s wrong with this picture? The Catholic Church persistently flouts laws and guidelines on the protection of children from sex abuse and runs 90 per cent of schools. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The attitude of some Irish Catholic bishops reminds me of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, sometime bishop of Autun, who survived all the upheavals of the French revolution and the French empire. Despite being laicised by the pope and fathering numerous children, on his death bed he remonstrated with the Abbé Dupanloup when he tried to anoint the palms of his hands. Talleyrand reminded him that he was a bishop and that he should be anointed on the back of his hands. Like his Irish counterparts, he never lost it. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am pleased to see that our Government is beginning to take seriously the unfriendly and aggressive activities of a foreign state on Irish soil.
The Government should make a statement to clarify that canon law is meaningless under Irish law. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether a person’s behaviour was legal or justified. Referring to compliance with canon law is about as relevant as referring to a company handbook as justification for breaking the law of the land. What matters is Irish law, and no one should be under any illusion about the exclusivity of Irish law over human behaviour in this State.
It is important to note that the value in the proposed law will be that it will impose criminal liability on people who don’t report suspected abuse. However, what has happened here and in other jurisdictions is that people have deliberately acted to hide crimes, by moving abusers around, and the like. This is categorically different from simply not reporting, and it needs no new law to impose criminal liability.
Anyone who acts to pervert the course of justice can be prosecuted for doing so. The evidence that this was done on a wide scale is in the public domain. For the life of me, I cannot see why people are not prosecuted for this. – Yours, etc,