Recently a man came to me for confession and told me (outside the confessional) that he had called a prominent Anglican evangelical parish to ask to make an appointment for confession, only to be told "we don't do that." After reading David Ould's piece "Genuine Confession is Public" (http://davidould.net/) I can only say "thank God, they don't do that" since apparently there are some evangelicals who do not hold the seal of confession to be absolutely binding.
Mr. Ould was writing in response to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement of the creation of a national
royal commission to consider institutional responses to instances of child
sexual abuse. "Almost immediately (and very predictably) attention has fallen upon the Roman Catholic Church" writes Mr. Ould, an Anglican priest (that's what the 1662 BCP calls him although he calls himself a minister) in the Diocese of Sydney.
Given the Australian Anglican Church's own child sexual abuse scandals "predictably" would hardly seem to be the word to use. But we are assured that Mr. Ould is "grateful to be serving in a denomination which, having had it’s own
terrible history in these matters, appears to be making every effort to
get things right now. It’s gratifying to see these issues properly dealt
with and doubly-pleasing that any shame brought to the reputation of
Christ by those who claim to serve Him will be dealt with."
When the child abuse cases first appeared in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas several years ago the Dallas Morning News managed to keep this story on the front page for two years running. Why? We would like to think it was because of those children who had suffered horrific and permanent damage from priests. But I cannot help but suspect that the real reason was because it sold newspapers. Why did it sell newspapers? Because it had special appeal to two distinct but happy audiences: the secular detractors of Christianity and the Protestants, who hate Roman Catholics as much, if not more than they love Jesus.
It is a convenient thing for some Christians to claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians so you can rejoice in your supposed innocence and in their bad publicity. The secularists, however, are more ecumenical; they glory in this because it proves once again not only that Christianity is bogus but that it is malicious. The Protestants and the Secularists agree on one thing: the destruction of children's lives is a good time to score debating points.
Mr Ould thinks that the problem is the seal of the confessional: "The most common complaint is that one priest, an abuser, will confess that abuse to another who will offer absolution as part of the sacrament of penance and not report the crime under the privilege of counsel. The abuser goes away reckoning that their sin is dealt with. There is, in the eyes of the world, no justice."
According to The Telegraph 14 Nov 2012 "[Australian] Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday slammed the use of the confessional to avoid reporting abuse, saying it is a 'sin of omission' and all adults have a duty to protect children." The royal commission formed to look into child sex abuse is likely to consider whether Catholic priests should be forced to tell police about crimes against children told to them in the confessional.
In the US Catholics and Conservative Protestants are of one mind concerning the attempt of the Obama administration to force Christian institutions to pay for birth control and abortion. We have learned what apparently Mr. Ould has not: the abrogation of religious freedom for one set of Christians is an abrogation of the rights of all Christians. We have the first amendment which rejected among other things the subjection of the Church to the State: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is among some Anglican Evangelicals understandably nostalgia for the 16th Century English Reformation, in which the State by statute enforced Evangelical views. But our Founding Fathers much to their credit rejected that nonsense. We are free to slug it out theologically and do not need the State to settle our differences for us. (Even if some denominations like TEC still look to the courts to enforce their theological preferences.)
There may be no member Church of the Anglican Communion which has spent more time on the Seal of the Confessional than the Anglican Church of Australia. The current primate Archbishop Phillip Aspinwall is of the opinion that the Seal of the Confessional is breakable. Archbishop Aspinwall's 'theological' basis seems to be the dubious principal shared by many evangelicals and liberals, that when Roman Catholics say (in this case Cardinal Pell) 'nay', they say 'aye'. But, as far as I can tell from the many convoluted documents, which the Australian Church has produced on this subject, the Seal of the Confessional still stands in that Church.
Mr Ould thinks that the problem is the seal of the confessional: "The most common complaint is that one priest, an abuser, will confess that abuse to another who will offer absolution as part of the sacrament of penance and not report the crime under the privilege of counsel. The abuser goes away reckoning that their sin is dealt with. There is, in the eyes of the world, no justice."
According to The Telegraph 14 Nov 2012 "[Australian] Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday slammed the use of the confessional to avoid reporting abuse, saying it is a 'sin of omission' and all adults have a duty to protect children." The royal commission formed to look into child sex abuse is likely to consider whether Catholic priests should be forced to tell police about crimes against children told to them in the confessional.
In the US Catholics and Conservative Protestants are of one mind concerning the attempt of the Obama administration to force Christian institutions to pay for birth control and abortion. We have learned what apparently Mr. Ould has not: the abrogation of religious freedom for one set of Christians is an abrogation of the rights of all Christians. We have the first amendment which rejected among other things the subjection of the Church to the State: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is among some Anglican Evangelicals understandably nostalgia for the 16th Century English Reformation, in which the State by statute enforced Evangelical views. But our Founding Fathers much to their credit rejected that nonsense. We are free to slug it out theologically and do not need the State to settle our differences for us. (Even if some denominations like TEC still look to the courts to enforce their theological preferences.)
There may be no member Church of the Anglican Communion which has spent more time on the Seal of the Confessional than the Anglican Church of Australia. The current primate Archbishop Phillip Aspinwall is of the opinion that the Seal of the Confessional is breakable. Archbishop Aspinwall's 'theological' basis seems to be the dubious principal shared by many evangelicals and liberals, that when Roman Catholics say (in this case Cardinal Pell) 'nay', they say 'aye'. But, as far as I can tell from the many convoluted documents, which the Australian Church has produced on this subject, the Seal of the Confessional still stands in that Church.
4 comments:
David,
Thank you for taking the time to digest and respond to my piece. I fear you may have misunderstood or even been misinformed about a few things so perhaps I might take the opportunity to clear a few things up?
Recently a man came to me for confession and told me (outside the confessional) that he had called a prominent Anglican evangelical parish to ask to make an appointment for confession, only to be told "we don't do that."
I'm saddened by that response. Whilst the church I serve at would be even more "evangelical" than the one you refer to here I can tell you how I would respond in such a situation. I would say "absolutely, I would be delighted to do that for you" and then meet with that man, hear his story, remind him (or perhaps even teach him for the first time) of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, and then call on him to renew or place his confidence upon Christ, providing assurance that if he does so he should know he is forgiven. I would also encourage him to make amends and seek reconciliation in whatever way was required.
Mr. Ould, an Anglican priest (that's what the 1662 BCP calls him although he calls himself a minister) in the Diocese of Sydney
2 things here. 1. due to a perculiarity of this diocese I am still "only" a deacon. Sydney ordains men to the presbyterate (and they deliberately use that term) when they take over the care of a parish as Rector or Curate in Charge. Having said that, I operate in a culture that regularly uses the word "priest" and so I tend to sit with the title if it is used of me by the public at large.
2. As a deacon (and we are all deacons, even if further ordained as priests or even bishops) we are, by virtue of the office and title, servants. To express that as "minister" is hardly a terrible thing - not least in a context where the "priesthood" is not understood in more High sacerdotal terms.
But I cannot help but suspect that the real reason was because it sold newspapers. Why did it sell newspapers? Because it had special appeal to two distinct but happy audiences: the secular detractors of Christianity and the Protestants, who hate Roman Catholics as much, if not more than they love Jesus.
I think you are right in this regard, and I am actually wary of falling into this same trap.
It is a convenient thing for some Christians to claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians so you can rejoice in your supposed innocence and in their bad publicity.
That is certainly true, but I fear you have over-read what I am saying. I do not deny that the piece goes on to make comments about Roman soteriology and it's implications in the ongoing issue here but I was careful not to frame the matter in such simplistic terms.
cont...
...cont.
Mr Ould thinks that the problem is the seal of the confessional
I don't think this is a fair reading. I actually argue that the problem is an abuse of the seal of the confessional, with respect to allowing offenders to assume some measure of redemption/forgiveness without the compulsion as part of the penance to make direct amends (including making a full and necessary confession to appropriate secular authorities.
We have learned what apparently Mr. Ould has not: the abrogation of religious freedom for one set of Christians is an abrogation of the rights of all Christians.
And I agree that such an abrogation is a terrifying thing with enormous consequences. But the situation before us here is somewhat different. My argument is that it is a denial of the gospel to not insist that these offenders take full responsibility for their actions. Simply put (and this is the guts of my argument in the piece) to offer absolution to someone in a sin of this nature (the abuse of children or others) and yet not to call them to a genuine repentance that includes taking responsibility for their actions is to actually not act in a gospel manner - as I put it, Genuine Confession is Public. The piercing light of the gospel allows us to open up even the darkest recesses in a liberating honesty grounded in the assurance of the grace of Jesus towards the sinner.
This is not a pealing away of the "seal of confession", quite the contrary.
The matter is further compounded by statutory (and now canonical) obligations that we are under here in Australia. As I point out, we are mandatory reporters - and rightly so! If we suspect a child is a risk of harm or has been harmed we are compelled to report that to the responsible authorities. I cannot conceive of how anyone can think this is a wrong thing. It is a limited responsibility only pertaining to specific cases involving a child or young person but there it is, nevertheless and I maintain it is a responsibility I gladly take upon myself as being consistent with the way Jesus spoke about little children.
If I may add one further thing - I am entirely sympathetic to the general position you hold. I would hate to see our general seal broken. But this is a particular area in which we ought to take a principled stand. Not least because of the increasing damage to the reputation of whole denominations but more so because the safety of children in our care and in our environment should surely not be a lesser principle.
Many thanks for your time David. For the aid of your readers, the direct link to my original article is here. I invite your comments and the comments of others there. This is an important subject with at least 3 important issues at stake - the rights of the state to intervene in our affairs, the safety of children, but above all the nature of the gospel and it's implications as people come to us to confess and seek assurance.
From one David to another David. As so often happens when Evangelicals and Catholics stick to their convictions, we discover that the differences are between us are not as large as we might imagine. However, in the issue of statuary and canonical compulsion to break the seal, the difference remains. I would find myself unable in conscience to obey such laws.
I actually found myself subpoenaed a number of years ago to testify in a case involving a penitent. By the way, the seal of confession, for what it is worth, is not recognized in the legal code of the State of Texas, although I know of no case where this has been enforced and so it has never been challenged. I was repeatedly subpoenaed and then finally the case was dismissed. The public allegation, not against me I hasten to add, involved sexual abuse of an adult by an adult, a psychologist. I was assured that I would not have to testify to anything said in confession. However, I was concerned because obviously the lawyers had no idea what was said or not said in confession. I have heard literally thousands of confessions and cannot remember the details of a confession I heard last Saturday, let alone one I heard twenty-five years ago. There is also the fact that more often or not there is conversation before and after the actual confession, which further challenges the memory. God in his merciful providence delivered me from this crisis of conscience.
I have never heard in all the confessions I have heard any one confess the grievous sin of child abuse. That I would remember. But if I had, there would be several courses of action open to me. I could and would withhold absolution until the penitent turned himself in to the authorities. He, therefore, would receive no relief, no reassuring benefit from the confession. I could and would ask the permission of the person to report the offense to the officers of the law. I would assure him of the saving power of the blood of Jesus, if he repents and genuine repentance must include taking the consequences of actions. This might just be passing the buck but I would not mind at all if the absolution of child sexual abuse were restricted to the bishop of the diocese. This could assure that the proper ecclesiastical authority takes the proper action, without necessarily breaking the seal.
The problem is the State and apparently the Church in the case of the Anglican Church in Australia sticking the camel’s nose into the tent. Before you know it the Camel is in the tent. It is not hard to think of many other sins which could justify breaking the seal:
spousal abuse, selling drugs, theft, robbing banks, embezzlement, treason, murder and on and on the list could go. The seal of the confessional is for the sake of all those souls who come in true repentance seeking not a cover for their sins but forgiveness and amendment of life. The State and even the Church has no right to infer with them. Abusus non tollit usum.
I would agree with the title of your post, if you altered it slightly, Genuine Repentance is Public. When people genuinely repent, there are outward and visible signs of repentance. I would be generally in favor of reviving the public penitence of the Medieval Church, when all through Lent and other times penitents stood outside the churches in quite public remorse.
Thank you for raising this question.
thanks David. You're right - despite some huge differences there are actually also some big similarities
Post a Comment