Seal of the Confessional !

For the first time a priest of the Roman Catholic Church has been convicted of the crime of  failing to report child sex allegations learned from a fellow priest making his confession as required of those following the Catholic creed.   The law of New South Wales comes into conflict with what the Catholic church claims is the seal of the confessional.

In the Newcastle local court, Magistrate Robert Stone found Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson guilty of concealing a child sex crime and sentenced him to twelve months prison.  Wilson has signalled that he will appeal this verdict and he has declined to  resign from the priesthood, nor has the Roman Catholic church asked for his resignation.

In the eyes of the law, Archbishop Wilson is now a convicted criminal.  It seems impossible that the Pope can simply ignore that situation and allow him to remain as Archbishop of Adelaide. That would be seen by many as sheer Catholic arrogance.   The church has an appalling record of priests defiling children and covering that crime by simply moving the offender to a different parish.

The crux of this matter is the convention held by the Catholic church that confession to a priest is where the priest is standing in as an intermediary for God and it is God who forgives the confessed sin.  Over centuries, the church has clamed to be above the law of the land in which it serves and we now have a legal ruling that this interpretation is not valid in New South Wales.

A new convention is in place.  Any priest who fails to report knowledge of child sex abuse puts himself at risk - of conviction and prison.  It seems that this reporting requirement applies exclusively to child sex crimes. and leaves the matter of murders unresolved.  That probably awaits a decision to be made in another court at another time, but this child sex verdict overturns the professed seal of the confessional.

A vexing decision for any priest and an agonising situation for Rome.  If Rome orders priests to maintain silence it comes into conflict with civil authority and condemns priests to martyrdom. Perhaps the answer to this problem is already apparent in the rules that apply when any form of civil crime is being investigated.

A suspect is made aware of his or her rights - and obligations.  That legal precursor is necessary before that person is interviewed and it would seem prudent for priests to make it clear that should a child crime be confessed to him during that persons confession he is obliged by law - and will obey that law - by discharging that obligation to the authorities.

By making that standard clear before confession the onus is clearly back in the hands of the perpetrator.  The priest is obeying the obligations of the land in which he resides and the person making confession is aware of what limits apply.

Archbishop Wilson is sixty-seven years old.  He certainly has the legal right to appeal and follow the course of the law and he has stated that should the appeal fail he will resign.  Obviously, the church would be wise to accept that resignation if it happens and a rational warning of the limits that apply in confessions should resolve this confrontation between church and state.