Google Translate English version - Pedocriminality in the Church: "The secrecy of confession is stronger than the laws of the Republic", according to Mgr Éric de Moulins-Beaufort
Brings up the issue:
"On the other hand, there may be the case of a child who says something, who suggests, who makes it clear that he is himself a victim," continued the president of the Conference of Bishops of France. "We have to find a way to allow this child to speak differently, but many children only speak in confession because they know it is secret," he said, saying that "s 'they find out that we use what they say to hurt their parents, that's a problem, because children often don't want their parents to be touched.
(Some of the odd phrasing is likely due to auto-translation.)
The solution to, "kids may not trust confession if you use what they've said to go after their abusers" is "support kids through the process, help them understand what happened, teach them that confession is a matter for sins which is not the same as crimes which are of secular concern." It is not, "pretend you never heard about it and allow an abuser to continue being active in the community."
Kids will trust confession A LOT MORE if the result is "abuser gets stopped and everyone else gets emotional and possibly financial support to deal with the fallout" than if it means "nothing gets better."
Thanks for this. I should translate it myself (native speaker here) or at least review GT's version in case a mistranslation slipped in.
And there's a lot I don't understand about things Christian, but I really want to question scream incoherently at whoever or whatever (according to him) gave those kids the impression that crimes by others are their own sins to confess to.
The best possible interpretation is, "kid is not confessing to the crime of being abused, but confessing to being angry or wanting to kill their abuser."
...But in some cases, it's going to be "kid confesses that they didn't hate all of it and that makes them evil." Or, "kid confesses that they didn't stop the sin from happening and that makes them evil."
(And while it's awful that kids may think they need to confess to any of that, there's a much greater chance of the kid mentioning it in the confessional than the abuser doing so.)
Hmm. Maybe. Still very warped, but if it leads to proper actions being taken... (I'd still question whether/why the secret of confession would apply when it comes to crimes by others coming to light in a child's confession, but I've been known to miss obvious things.)
Generally, it doesn't lead to actions being taken at all, which is the problem.
In the past - possibly the very distant past - there was a more solid difference between "community problem that the community should deal with" and "crimes for which you haul in legal officials." And child abuse fell in the former category, in part because child abuse wasn't a crime at all until fairly recently.
Most things that showed up in the confessional were either character flaws/bad judgment/petty vices, that the community had a better chance of fixing than sheriffs, or one-time crimes that wouldn't happen again if someone was truly remorseful - which would need to be the case for an honest confession. And in settings where the priest was part of the community but law enforcement wasn't, that made a bit more sense.
What's missing in these cases, is priests willing to say, "you have to tell someone else about this. You aren't truly remorseful and deserving of divine forgiveness if you're not willing to face secular consequences. And if you're not seeking absolution, then this isn't a valid confession and I can report what happened."
Absolution often requires a redress of the harm done to someone else. Someone might be required to return a stolen object, retract a slanderous statement, pay to repair what they've broken, etc. They might be able to do that anonymously, but they would still have to attempt to fix the damage. The problem with the child abuse cases is: Priests have not been demanding the harm be addressed for absolution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pauamma) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
debunkingxian2021-10-07 12:38 am
no subject
Brings up the issue: (Some of the odd phrasing is likely due to auto-translation.)
The solution to, "kids may not trust confession if you use what they've said to go after their abusers" is "support kids through the process, help them understand what happened, teach them that confession is a matter for sins which is not the same as crimes which are of secular concern." It is not, "pretend you never heard about it and allow an abuser to continue being active in the community."
Kids will trust confession A LOT MORE if the result is "abuser gets stopped and everyone else gets emotional and possibly financial support to deal with the fallout" than if it means "nothing gets better."
no subject
And there's a lot I don't understand about things Christian, but I really want to
questionscream incoherently at whoever or whatever (according to him) gave those kids the impression that crimes by others are their own sins to confess to.no subject
...But in some cases, it's going to be "kid confesses that they didn't hate all of it and that makes them evil." Or, "kid confesses that they didn't stop the sin from happening and that makes them evil."
(And while it's awful that kids may think they need to confess to any of that, there's a much greater chance of the kid mentioning it in the confessional than the abuser doing so.)
no subject
no subject
In the past - possibly the very distant past - there was a more solid difference between "community problem that the community should deal with" and "crimes for which you haul in legal officials." And child abuse fell in the former category, in part because child abuse wasn't a crime at all until fairly recently.
Most things that showed up in the confessional were either character flaws/bad judgment/petty vices, that the community had a better chance of fixing than sheriffs, or one-time crimes that wouldn't happen again if someone was truly remorseful - which would need to be the case for an honest confession. And in settings where the priest was part of the community but law enforcement wasn't, that made a bit more sense.
What's missing in these cases, is priests willing to say, "you have to tell someone else about this. You aren't truly remorseful and deserving of divine forgiveness if you're not willing to face secular consequences. And if you're not seeking absolution, then this isn't a valid confession and I can report what happened."
Absolution often requires a redress of the harm done to someone else. Someone might be required to return a stolen object, retract a slanderous statement, pay to repair what they've broken, etc. They might be able to do that anonymously, but they would still have to attempt to fix the damage. The problem with the child abuse cases is: Priests have not been demanding the harm be addressed for absolution.
no subject