One can certainly share the sense of frustration and, indeed, quite patent anger and irritation of the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, in his recent criticisms of the Vatican. In the face of overwhelming evidence of sexual and physical abuse by clergy, religious and Catholic institutions in Ireland, the Vatican seems reluctant to accept its share of responsibility. It also seems unwilling to co-operate without reservations with the Irish government’s proposals to prevent such abuse in future.
The most startling new measure in a system of mandatory reporting is the obligation for priests to violate the sanctity of the “sacramental seal” of Confession when a paedophile reveals that he or she has been involved in such activities. Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a similar measure for Australia.
There are many ways to approach this story – not the least of which would be to examine how these cases reveal the intrinsic error of the sacramental forgiveness that is so central to RC dogma – but this statement caught my eye. [blockquote] Contrary to popular belief in some quarters, confession is not a license to continue sinning, nor does it deny or excuse the harm that has been done. It requires that the harm be remedied and, in certain circumstances, that the perpetrator be punished. Certainly with a serial paedophile, I would expect – but this is debated among moral theologians – that the priest would advise the penitent to surrender to the secular authorities. He may even make this a condition of granting absolution.[/blockquote] My emphasis.
“Debated among moral theologians?” Are you kidding me? He may make surrender a condition of absolution? Are you kidding me? What exactly is there to debate? Where does this ‘may’ come from? How could the priest not advise the penitent to surrender? How could he not make it a condition of absolution? Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I consider a willingness to receive consequences as necessary evidence of repentance.
carl