Confession, Child Abuse and the Royal Commission

This week the Royal Commission made it clear that it would like a law passed through our federal parliament mandating priests who hear a confession relating to child abuse to pass the information on to appropriate authorities.  While Francis Sullivan, CEO of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council has signalled sympathy even support for this request, the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, says such a requirement would be an infringement of ‘freedom of religion’; and Fr Frank Brennan, in an Opinion Piece in the Fairfax papers, has said if this became law he would simply disobey or cease hearing confessions.
 
The general population and perhaps even a significant proportion of the catholic community will find this response very hard to understand or accept given the gravity of the situation in which the Church finds itself.
 
Neither the Archbishop nor Father Brennan have given a considered argument to defend their position, probably because of the reality that an argument based in theology or canon law would not be easy reading in the secular press!
 
Let me have a shot at it. I assume both Archbishop Hart and Father Brenan are coming from a traditional catholic position that the sacerdotal ministries of the Church are not incidental but necessary and effective conduits of grace to eternal salvation.  That is to say, to deny the seal of the confessional to a person in mortal danger who wishes to confess the crime of child abuse is to potentially deny that person their opportunity of salvation.  It has been the Roman Catholic position that the capacity to forgive sins, given by Christ to his Church, is facilitated through a sacerdotal priesthood that for more than a thousand years has been expected to be male and celibate.
 
Five hundred years ago this October Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church, heralding the European Reformation.  Luther considered many practices of the Roman Church to be abuses, most notably the practice of indulgencies as effective instruments of salvation. But significantly he upheld the importance of confession and it is believed went regularly to confession himself until his death. (Some might suggest his rather florid language should have made this a necessity)!
 
However, after a struggle in which he wanted to uphold the importance of confession, he considered confession to be a ‘pastoral’ sacrament (along with marriage, unction etc) and not of the same standing as the dominical sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist or Mass).  In large measure the Anglican Church, which has retained catholic practice, has adopted Luther’s position.
 
As a pastoral sacrament, confession, including its seal of confidentiality should be honoured and protected.
 
Traditionally the sacrament of confession and the absolution that flows from it comprises three parts. 
·         Contrition  - genuine sorrow or penitence of heart
·         Confession – the declaring of the fault
·         Sanctification – the performance of certain acts, usually of a pious nature.
 
Luther was critical of the place of sanctification, not in the general sense, but in the specific sense of being a means through which absolution could be achieved. He of course argued that forgiveness is an unwarranted gift of grace, not placated or warranted through any act of ours other than the contrition itself.
 
It is not the priestly absolution that secures forgiveness and restitution, but grace that flows from genuine contrition, the desire for amendment of life and where it is appropriate or possible, action which heals or restores the hurt and damage caused. Absolution is the outward confirmation of the inner movement of the heart, through the grace of God.
 
Religious confession (like the oath taken on the bible in a court) assumes the one taking the oath or the one confessing ‘fears’ the judgement that flows from their action, and recognises accountability to God.
 
No human being alive is immune from the need for ‘amendment of life’.  Being able to confess a mistake or misstep to another is one sure path of preventing such an error becoming a pattern, a habit, or a way of life. For those with faith in God, to confess to one appropriately authorised (priest) is a gift of grace.
 
There are times in most lives when regret or remorse becomes a burden. Often the reason for remorse was not an intended action but an unintended consequence.  The relief of this burden is an absolute necessity for a healthy life to be able to embrace the present. For those with religious faith, again the sacrament of confession is a channel of grace.
 
The capacity to talk in the strictest confidence to another is essential if a person is to be enabled to negotiate troubled pathways and to reveal what needs to be revealed for health wholeness and forgiveness.  The seal of the confessional is essential.
 
All of these and many others are pastoral needs met through confession.
 
However, a person confessing a crime, especially a crime of the gravity of child abuse, cannot expect the assurance of absolution unless the consequences of that action are faced. The facing inevitably means facing consequences in law.   Christian practice has always recognised the legitimacy and obligation of civil law.  If hurt has been done to another, especially hurt caused through violation of laws of the state, then the consequences of that violation have to be met. It is one matter for a person to seek and receive forgiveness, it is quite another for the consequences of the act or behaviour to be properly addressed.  The one does not mitigate the other.  Even today it appears there are many, some in Church leadership, who have not properly understood the lifelong damage done through abuse of children.
 
Biblical teaching as well as state law recognises that violation or hurt of a child is most grievous.
 
For Archbishop Hart of Melbourne to argue that if child abuse revealed in the sacrament of confession has to be mandatorily reported it would be a violation of ‘freedom of religion’ is absolute nonsense. For the one making the confession to genuinely be restored, for their sake as well as for the sake of the one who has been damaged, meeting the consequences of their action according to law is a necessity. It would of course be wrong for a person to be ‘entrapped’.  It needs to be made clear that evidence of this crime has to be reported. It would also be wrong for the person who has had the courage to come to confession is abandoned. The priest or another acceptable person should accompany the penitent on the long and tortuous journey ahead, giving outward and tangible evidence of divine grace and redemption which never ceases to be on offer.
 
‘Freedom of Religion’ will be seen as having no place within Australian society if it appears, even by default, to protect an abuser from the consequences of their criminal behaviour. Nor will it be seen as a right worth protecting if it gives clergy an immunity not enjoyed by teachers or people of other professions who have a mandatory obligation to refer information relating to abuse, even if that information is uncertain.
 
Freedom of religion should not and cannot protect any from the application of civil law unless that law is clearly immoral.
 
It is my hope and prayer that the request of the Commission becomes law and that Father Brenan will hear confessions for a very long time to come, without doubt his ministry is and will be a blessing to the many who are fortunate enough to benefit from his profound wisdom and counsel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​