Update: Here’s a one minute video of the news conference from The Australian:
And here’s my fixed version of that interview: HERE.
This is just horrific. Why? Read the analysis I made below, before this video was provided. It’s worse than I thought. What he’s saying is that any accused priest is to be denied confession until he dies. Remember that even 50% of priests who are accused are innocent. Perhaps even all priests, to a man, who have been accused and commit suicide are innocent. They just can’t take the betrayal of their fellow bishops and priests. Imagine now that they are refused access to confession for life. Just. Wow. I bet that most all of them, who are innocent of the accusations, and are suffering slander for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, will be sorely tempted to think that God hates them and wants nothing more than that they go to hell. Imagine, being locked out of any possibility of absolution… Quote:
“I would never hear the confession of a priest who was suspected of such a thing.”
– Cardinal George Pell
Remember, he’s talking about just being “suspected.” And he would lock someone out of confession for life for being “suspected,” even though such suspected people could very well be innocent…
Further update: A clarification was issued:
A priest who suspects the sacrament of penance will be abused by the penitent should not hear such a confession. Any absolution is dependent on genuine personal repentance, a commitment to suitable restitution and a firm “purpose of amendment” to sin no more. (here on the site of the Archdiocese of Sydney)
Of course, that clarification is as clear as mud. Note the words: “A priest who suspects…” The point is, how does he know until he hears the confession, unless the situation is such as I’ve outlined further below, but then that wouldn’t be a matter of suspecting anything. The priest would already know for certain. But the Cardinal insists on suspicions. This is not good. You can deny absolution if you find out that there is no repentance, right?
Yet another update: The Cardinal’s comment in the Sydney Morning Herald:
There has also been misunderstanding over the seal of Confession, causing a diversion from the real issue.
Going to Confession is not getting a ticket to sin. If a penitent is not genuinely sorry and is determined to return to his wrongdoing, then the sacrament is useless; a sacrilege and an insult to God.
Catholic teaching is clear: the seal of Confession is inviolable. The law of the land is also clear. Federal and state laws protect a member of the clergy from being forced to divulge details of a religious Confession, just as it protects clients from being forced to disclose what they discuss with their lawyers.
Religious freedom is protected by the Australian constitution; an essential part of the separation of church and state, which protects believers and faith communities from government dictating religious belief and practice.
Priests are well able to comply with the law about reporting crimes while maintaining the seal of Confession as the law allows. As a bishop, I do not hear the confessions of my priests (except in an emergency). A priest who suspects the sacrament of Penance will be abused by a penitent should not hear such a confession
So, again, no clarification at all. It all boils down to the words, “A priest who suspects…” That’s not good enough.
Update for the weekend of November 18, 2012: Parishes in Australia will be distributing a two page memo about the royal commission in church bulletins. Here’s the *.pdf: Royal Commission Bishops’ Response, November, 2012. Here’s a lovely paragraph:
It is unjust and inappropriate to suggest crimes are being – or have been – committed, without producing evidence; without asking those accused for their responses before making generalised slurs.
So, we can make generalized slurs tearing down entire religions if we only make a pro-forma show of justice about one case, wherein the “evidence” is not weighed in court, nor any response of the accused party, but all is relativized to what goes into any gossip’s preliminary preparation for a suggestion of a crime? Such a statement is the de facto modus agendi of anti-Catholic SNAP, which admits it lies out of sheer hatred of priests and the Catholic Church. But this is the careful statement of the bishops of Australia. Uh-huh. It seems like I should add all this into another post for The Judas Crisis series on the sidebar of http://holysoulshermitage.com.
* * * The original post below * * *
Jared Owens of The Australian wrote on 14 November 2012 about Cardinal Pell’s take on the pressure the Australian government is putting on the Church to break the seal of confession in the case of sexual abuse:
Cardinal Pell said he hoped priests would confidentially counsel any abuser to “follow the law”.
In other words, if they are actually hearing about abuse during confession, the Cardinal hopes that the priests hearing the confession will respect the seal of confession. That’s expected. That’s good. There is no sin so great that God’s mercy cannot provide forgiveness for those who are truly repentant. He also says this:
But he said priests should avoid hearing confession from colleagues suspected of committing child sex abuse to avoid being bound by the Seal of Confession.
Of course, that’s the paraphrase of the reporter. But now he uses quotation marks:
“If the priest knows beforehand about such a situation, the priest should refuse to hear the confession,” Cardinal Pell said.
“Refuse to hear the confession.” Is that an accurate quote? How to parse this?
The worst case scenario: Let’s take the Cardinal at his word. It is a confession we are talking about, that is, a true confession, where the priest knows the person is truly penitent, all this before the confession begins. Perhaps I have no imagination[!], but it seems to me that the only possible scenario here is that someone comes to a priest to make an accusation against someone else in the parish. As that person finishes and leaves out the front door, the alleged perp comes into the back door demanding an absolution, even before a mandatory call to the police can be made. The alleged perp might well be innocent of the charges, and wants absolution for other sins before going off to prison, as he suspects, knowing that he’s been framed for revenge, say, over a family inheritance or some such thing. But the priest doesn’t know any of this, and it is all hearsay to this point. He is to hear the confession. But perhaps the Cardinal has something else in mind. I can’t imagine what it is. I wouldn’t want to think that he wants priests to run away from hearing confessions just to protect themselves under the law, desiring that sinners rot in hell for eternity for the sake of someone else’s momentary political correctness upon this earth. God’s mercy is great enough to cover this circumstance. We’re not more powerful than God. God will not understand and applaud our prudence which mocks Him on the cross even while He says: “Father, forgive them.” But maybe the Cardinal is thinking of some other scenario. Can you think of one for me? Help me to understand.
The best case scenario: Sometimes people say things that they understand in their own minds, but which they don’t articulate well. The Cardinal is, perhaps, notorious for that about many important doctrinal matters. And reporters like to capitalize on such things. Is there is a good and holy way to understand all this? Let’s take an extreme example, for that is the only example that fits as far as my poor imagination goes. It requires that the would-be confession in question is — against the words of the Cardinal — not a true confession, but perhaps this is what he meant:
Say that a priest walks in on an abuse situation, catching someone on the parish grounds in some horrific sexual act with a minor. Say that the guilty party immediately grabs hold of the priest and violently throws him to the ground, demanding an absolution, screaming that because it is a confession, the priest will have to keep his mouth shut and not break the seal of confession. The guilty party then violently slaps the priest repeatedly, screaming, “Do you understand me? Give me the absolution, NOW!” Meanwhile, the youngster who was being abused is wimpering and crying and cowering over to the side, naked and frightened. “Shut the hell up!” screams the guilty party. /// Now, what should the innocent priest do, give the perp an absolution in this circumstance? Well, no. The grace of the sacrament would not be fruitfully received. The guilty party wants to commit a sacrilege of utilizing the sacrament of confession, namely, the seal of confession, for ulterior motives of self-protection, and has no desire for the mercy of God.
At any rate, there is great ambiguity here. We don’t need ambiguity when it comes to our eternal salvation.
By the way, and just to say: Australians, generally speaking, have the wild idea ingrained into their very beings, that if a sin can be forgiven, it is not a sin and is not serious in any way, and that if a sin cannot be forgiven, only then is it a sin, but it still can’t be forgiven. So, really, effectively, no one ever goes to confession in Australia. Just to set the record straight: any sin, even grave sin, can be forgiven, if you want that forgiveness from God.
By the way, and just to say: Any priest who will not absolve a truly penitent sinner just for the sake of political correctness takes that sin, it seems to me, upon themselves in the sight of God. The guilty party may well be forgiven by God directly, but the priest might well go to hell for eternity. Think about it.
Accompany me, Father George David Byers, S.S.L., S.T.D., as I begin life as a Catholic Priest-Hermit by choice. Holy Souls Hermitage is dedicated to the sanctification of my fellow priests, bishops, deacons & seminarians going through the purgatory of this life or the next. Prayer and sacrifice go up, of course, for both Benedict XVI and the next Successor of Saint Peter. 
I’m glad that God will forgive our sins.
We are all poor, weak sinners, as it seems. I’m sorry that political correctness is getting in the way of acknowleging this truth. Catholics should have the opportunity to confess their sins to a priest, no matter what. Didn’t Jesus forgive that guy on the other cross? Isn’t it all about repentance and forgiveness?
Australians may speak English, but they have a very different Weltanschauung than we do as Americans. I can say this from experience having an Australian sister-in-law. Remember, they never replaced the Union Jack with their own flag. And I believe that they still sing “God Save the Queen.” They are still very much a British colony, though few Australians will acknowlege this.
In making my life an act of contrition, I give money and food and hygiene kits to the homeless and things like that. And I try always to act with gentleness and restraint towards everyone. I am glad that God can forgive me my many failings, such as my tendency towards idleness, my love of listening in on other people’s conversations, etc.
Sorry for babbling….
Wow. Things just seem to go from bad to worse.
Having lived in Sydney Australia all my life, I have followed this story closely. Cardinal Pell, if he did indeed make these comments (and lets assume he did) is playing the pragmatists game (although I’m not sure why he thinks he has too). The reason being is that one politician said “that priests will be called into the witness stand and if they do not truly testify against another priest, and use the confidentiality of confession as a reason not to do so – then they will be held in contempt of court and jailed.” Yes, i did use quotation marks…this politician actually said this.
Frank G
Hello Frank: If you would, please follow this still, so that we might note if the Cardinal corrects the story in any way, perhaps in a rescript by the paper buried somewhere… who knows where.
By the way: Priests must be ready to go to prison at any time for this kind of thing. What an honor to serve the Lord as a martyr!
Being a martyr is the most pragmatic thing we can do.
A reader sent this in by email trying to stay totally anonymous:
Father George, at the moment the hostility towards the Catholic Church in Australia is very strong. The media is going full strength against us, and also showing their ugly bias.
Cardinal Pell is being personally attacked by them. A lot is going on. I understand the Cardinal’s concern, if he said not to hear the Confession of certain people, however, it is clear that he has not thought the whole thing out, so I hope that he sees your post regarding this matter, and realizes the full implications of not hearing the Confessions of certain people, (as you have outlined).
Jennifer made a comment about the Australian Flag. We do not have the Union Jack as our flag. It is only one element of our flag. On January 26, 1788, eleven ships came to Australian from The British Isles in what is known as the First Fleet.
This was the first European settlement in Australia. The people on board were from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. There were approximately 1030 people on these ships, (soldiers, convicts, sailors, etc.)
They planted their flag (the Union Jack) at Port Jackson (Sydney). I recently found out that two of my ancestors were aboard the first fleet, (a man and a woman who later married and had a daughter on Norfolk Island, and then moved back to Sydney, when the food shortage in Sydney was over).
The Union Jack is very Catholic. It is the Cross of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick. It represents the patron saints of England, Ireland and Scotland. It is a very important part of Australia’s heritage.
The rest of Australia’s flag is a navy blue background with the constellation of the Southern Cross on it, and a large star with represents the states of Australia, (NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the island state of Tasmania). It also covers the Northern Territory and the ACT.
There is nothing wrong with singing God Save the Queen, but perhaps it should be extended to God save all of us. Why should the Queen be the only one to benefit from this prayer?
We are very different from Britain. The British (who live in Australia) would be the first to admit that.
Ouch, Fr George! How extraordinary that you say ” Australians, generally speaking, have the wild idea ingrained into their very beings, that if a sin can be forgiven, it is not a sin and is not serious in any way, and that if a sin cannot be forgiven, only then is it a sin, but it still can’t be forgiven. So, really, effectively, no one ever goes to confession in Australia.”
This is not my experience when I line up every first Saturday and wait for the penitents ahead of me to finish confessing (I can’t say what the queue is like on the other Saturdays of the month.) Still, it is true that the sense of sin is weak generally and so there is not a great sense of the need for absolution.
Let me take this opportunity to comment on face-to-face confession: In my experience it is probably the ultimate exercise in humility. Sure it is difficult, and so it is fortunate that penitents do have the screen option – in our parish the confessionals have been modified to allow both.
Catholics of my generation here are watching the unfolding of events closely and trying not to wince at the Cardinal’s media performances. I would really like the whole issue to be addressed from the pulpit at Sunday Mass but doubt that that will happen. Please pray for the Church in Australia. Is it so much different to the Church in your country?
I am sorry to read that the Catholic Church has problems in Australia. But I am not surprised, as my Australian sister-in-law hates Catholics, especially the pope. The rest of her family feels the same way. They are even more prejudiced against Mormons.
I had no idea that the Union Jack had any Catholic connotation. But Australia is a Commonwealth country. Their culture is much more heavily influenced by Great Britain than by any other country. But few Australians will acknowledge this.
When my sister-in-law tries to compare the American Indians to Aborigines, the Wild West to the Outback, and the convicts to the Pilgrims, I have learned to get up and leave.
I am sorry to sound so bitter.
Hello Bernadette,
I’m saying all this based on three and a half years in Australian parishes. It was a pretty constant refrain, often said rather emotionally, as might be expected, as such an idea rather backs one into a corner.
Of course, it depends on the parish and what the preaching was like in those parishes. For instance, in Doonside or Riverwood, one would meet the situation you describe about yourself. No one would ever have heard what I mentioned.
As far as the face to face goes, I know there are many like you, but there are oceans of people who are not. That’s just my experience in many parishes right around the world, from the perspective on the other side of the screen!
Prayers and blessings.
Hello Father George, I agree with Bernadette wholeheartedly regarding confession here in Australia [Good to hear that you've also had a good experience. Perhaps you are truly unaware that general absolution is still commonplace in many parishes, and that confessions are way, way, way down and even non-existent. Trust me, I know something about this.] and with her request for prayers for the Church, which is really being persecuted by the very anti-Catholic media.
In regard to Cardinal Pell’s rather shocking comment about not confessing a suspected paedophile colleague, he does seem to me to have an unfortunate way of expressing himself to the media. He has somewhat clarified that statement by saying that a priest who thinks a sacrilegious confession is intended should refuse to hear that confession. [This was no clarification at all. He simply repeated the essential words of error: "A priest who suspects..." He's repeated that again and again. He's dead wrong. I've heard a zillion confessions as a priest, particularly when I was a chaplain in Lourdes for the Jubilee, when they had 12 million pilgrims, most all of whom wanted to go to confession. A confessor who suspects before a confession that someone is insincere will find out 99.9999999999999 percent of the time that he is wrong. I never experienced the opposite.]
I’m not positive but perhaps he means that a paedophile who is truly repentant should prove his repentance by first confessing his crime to the police before obtaining absolution (unless the paedophile is in danger of death, of course). [He didn't say that, did he? No. Moreover, you jump to conclusions and say "paedophile", skipping the "suspects" part. I'm only guessing, but that is truly a SNAP attitude: priests are always guilty because they cannot prove their innocence. But perhaps you expressed yourself to the media in an unfortunate way. Don't forget, even up to 50% of accused priests are innocent. I mean, should an innocent priest who is suspected, in your scenario, go to the police and lie that he did such a thing so that he can then go to confession to a priest, having proven his sincerity? Really?]
I have read Fr. Z discussing around the issue of abusing priest attempting to use the seal of confession to protect themselves. The situation goes something like this: An abuser fears that he might be caught so he goes to his superior and confesses to the abuse. Now the superior is put in a very bad situation. The seal prevents him from taking action agianst the priest, which is (at least I seem to recall Fr. Z saying so) not just reporting the abuser to the police, but even in using the knowledge from confession to reassign the priest or taking action under canon law. Now if an independent report comes to the confessor he is still in a bad place, because the false penitnet (that is the abuser priest) may attempt to charge the superior with breaking the seal. No doubt a Church court would eventually decide the seal was not broken, but maybe not, they are made up of men too and might make a mistake. If the superior is found to have broken the seal he is excommunicated and removed from ministery.Meanwhile he must be concerned with being called to testify about the matter, because it may not be easy for him to separate when he knowns only from the confession and what he knows form other sources.
So Fr. Z’s advice, I beleive, was that it was safer for the superior not to hear the confession of their priest, but suggest they go elsewhere.
Terry: Father Z is correct. That is, in fact, canon law. However, Cardinal Pell insisted on making a sweeping statement about all priests who hear confessions.
Cardinal Pell seems to me to be in need of all those prayers and indulgences you asked us to offer up this month. Between his denial of Adam and Eve in front of the contemptous and arrogant arch atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins on a live debate to his seemingly making a mockery of the sacrament of confession he is BADLY in need of actual graces and perhaps a true conversion as well. With friends like this in the Church who needs enemies? Some of our own prelates make a mockery of the Catholic faith and contribute to it being considered an irrelevant laughingstock among many worldwide. I can see that so much of this crisis is really a crisis of faith but a crisis of faith first and foremost in the hearts of the episcopate.
Justin: Do you have a link to the Adam and Eve thing? I would greatly appreciate that. I’m hoping with the confession thing that he is just way in over his head. Too much pressure. Can’t think straight. Yikes! Nevertheless, priests are really suffering with this, terribly.
Update: I googled Richard Dawkins and George Pell and came upon the youtube of the debate. Since I was in town today, I took advantage of some free bandwidth and downloaded the entire hour show. Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.
Perhaps Cardinal Pell was just stressed and overwhelmed. Maybe he just needs to regroup and rethink his (and the Church’s) true position. I’m going to be praying for him.
My apologies, you are right.
Lorraine: Of course, it is so difficult to enter into this whole universe of injustice for everyone. When we first take a look, we don’t want to see it all. I was that way anyway. Yikes!