Louisiana Judge Rules That Priests Don’t Have to Report Abuse if They Hear It During Confession

[struggle4progress]

62. Let me say first that I entirely agree with your comment upthread

that the effort to prevent the woman's own testimony regarding what she told the priest was outlandish: I cannot see how any court could accept such an argument; and IMO it was quite properly quashed

It would also seem to me that, if the allegations in the suit are correct, there must be some proper route for the priest to suggest the woman go to the authorities or that she repeat this to him outside of the confessional context, thereby allowing him to make the report himself

As for the rest, I think I will try to explain the context, so far as I understand it, and so far as I can explain it, with a minimal amount of theology and more emphasis on philosophy and psychology. The ancient teaching of the church is that other humans are the closest thing we have to any divine image; and that true religion consists in our radical love of them despite their imperfections, which we should recall rather resemble our own imperfections: the logic then involves the question of how we might improve ourselves to love them better and how we might teach them similarly to improve themselves. Confession is, in a certain sense, a version of the modern talking-cure: people are encouraged see themselves clearly, with their faults; to accept themselves and others; and to try to cultivate the habits that will improve their ability to love. Lying to ourselves is one of the most common of human psychological illnesses; and it often springs from the fear that we will accidentally betray our secrets to others, and then suffer the consequences, which leads to a psychic rot. The confessional provides a context in which this dishonest veil can be torn away; it does so by guaranteeing that the matters revealed will not be disclosed by the person hearing the confession, no matter how grave the offense; but the teaching is also that the confession is not merely a formal ritual but rather a kind of cleansing act that has effect only if the penitent be genuinely contrite and genuinely intending to amend. Without the guarantee of complete confidence, the psychology has little chance, because the fear of betrayal of our secrets is a strong incentive to cover them with further layers of lies. We have little chance of reforming ourselves, if we cannot even admit aloud that we have been wrong; but, as in much of the rest of life, one step in the right direction can lead to another. The confession is not a magic act, that permits one to wrong others willfully and walk away with a clear conscience thereafter: it is supposed to function as an exercise in continuing growth of our ability to love our neighbor, by forcing us to take into account our habits of thought, word, and deed that undermine that. The idea that there are crimes so grave, that sincere contrition becomes meaningless, is fundamentally contrary to this enterprise; and to allow the carving out of exceptions to the seal-of-confession undermines in every way the assumptions that underlie the practice