Australia lifts the seal of the confession

[hrmjustin]

Author:
George Conger
The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia has voted to amend the church’s 1989 canon on confession, no longer requiring its clergy to maintain the seal of the confession.

On 2 July 2014 synod amended the existing rule that states the confession of a crime is to be kept confidential unless the person making the confession consents to a priest disclosing it. The new policy allows priests to report serious crimes if the person making the confession has not reported the offence to police and director of professional standards. A minister is only obliged to keep such an offence secret if he or she is reasonably satisfied that the penitent has already reported the offence to police.

The proposer of the motion, barrister Garth Blake, told synod the church should not act as a cloak for criminals. “It seemed to me that protecting children and the vulnerable takes precedence over the confidentiality of confessions.”

Adelaide Archbishop Jeffrey Driver told The Advertiser he would encourage his dioceses to adopt the new policy. “I understand the importance of the confessional, but on balance I believe this is a healthy step,” he said.

http://www.anglicanink.com/article/australia-lifts-seal-confession

[rug]

1. That's a mistake.

[goldent]

3. I tend to agree, but not fully....

I note that the change *allows* but does not seem to *require* the Priest to report it.

I imagine there are cases where the crime is on-going (e.g. forms of abuse) where the Priest formerly was put in a very difficult situation of having to keep quiet while people were being harmed. Now he can choose to report it. I would think the priest would advice the person to report it, or he will be forced to.

If the crime is done and in the past, I would think many Priests would choose not to report it. But again it would depend on whether NOT reporting it would lead to harm (perhaps mental anguish caused by a crime going unsolved).

[hrmjustin]

6. Absolutely!

Dumbest thing I have seen from the Anglican Church of Australia and that says a lot.

[okasha]

2. It's a very bad mistake.

The precedent imperils doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. This idiot should think about how it would damage him to have his physician telling the world about his dose of clap. (Pictures at 10!)

[skepticscott]

4. No, not at all

Doctor/patient confidentiality already has exceptions under the law in many jurisdictions, including the requirement for doctors to report child abuse and gunshot wounds. It's all a matter of what priorities a society (and in this case, a religion) want to set. I applaud the Anglican Church for putting religious ritual second to public safety.

[rug]

8. You're confusing confidentiality with privilege.

This amendment changes the holder of the privilege from the penitent to the priest.

A minister is only obliged to keep such an offence secret if he or she is reasonably satisfied that the penitent has already reported the offence to police.

Do you want a priest to make that subjective determination?

That's not how either the attorney/client or the doctor/patient privilege works. Those hold that there is no privilege in the first place if there is an ongoing crime.

There are very strong policy reasons for the privilege.

[hrmjustin]

7. The Anglican Chur c h of Australia has gone downhill since they picked an Archbishop that

does not really believe in Apostolic Succession.

[okasha]

9. I have the impression that the Australian Church

is very conservative. Aren't they still fighting over the issue of women clergy?

[hrmjustin]

10. I believe so but some of the clergy think that it is a Baptist denomination when it is not.

[hrmjustin]

5. I think this is a huge mistake. It is destroying the cornerstone of a sacrament.

There is no excuse for this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Try looking at it like this:

Even in the medical profession, privacy rights are not absolute. Yes, you can (or, rather, should be able to) trust your doctor not to run around town telling anyone and everyone about the details of your last visit, but if your doctor believes you to be a threat to yourself or others, he or she is legally obligated to tell someone.

People who enter a confessional booth have a similarly reasonable expectation to privacy. If you cheat on your spouse, drink too much, or otherwise violate the central moral tenets of your religion, you shouldn't have to worry about whether or not your cleric is going to blab about it to someone else. But at the same time, if there is a chance you pose a threat to yourself or others, then privacy is no longer a reasonable expectation. In the interest of your community, or in the interest of yourself, it becomes incumbent upon the cleric to alert the proper authorities.

I can't speak to whether the sanctity of the sacrament of confession is called into question by these changes, but ultimately, I do think this benefits both the Anglican Church and its communities, and the Church hierarchy deserves a lot of credit for modernizing their stance on privacy to comport with the standards of most secular institutions. The important part, I think, is that they make it clear to their clergy and congregations what manner of situation would warrant information sharing, to minimize mistakes and misunderstandings.

[hrmjustin]

12. It destroys the sacrment. We would never go along with this in the Episcopal Church.

I can't accept this. That Archbishop is slowly taking away the character of the church.

This will stop people from using the sacrament imo.

Time will tell but I think this is a bad thing.

[okasha]

13. Try looking at it like this.

The Archbishop has just guaranteed that a penitent is NOT going to confess a reportable act to a priest, is NOT going to be advised to report the act to the authorities, and is NOT going to be counseled about the effects of the act on others or himself or about seeking help for destructive behavior.

Way to go, Archbishop. You've just covered your own butt and and told your lost sheep to get lost and stay lost.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. I have considered it

And in some cases, you might be correct. It largely depends on the specifics of the reform, chiefly, what the Church considers "serious crimes".

The important thing to bear in mind is that blanket moral precepts are rarely moral under every conceivable circumstance. Generally speaking, I do believe that parishioners seeking guidance through the sacrament of reconciliation have the right to expect privacy, but not always. In not reporting a penitent parishioner who continues to threaten to the safety of others, a cleric may through omission of action allow others to come to harm. The moral thing to do in such a circumstance is to report the person, neutralize the threat they pose to others, and then work on their spiritual needs in an environment where relapse is less of a concern.

I'd have to see what the Archbishop is specifically proposing to comment on whether I agree with it partially, in its totality, or not at all, but my reason for commenting here has more to do with hrmjustin feeling like there is no excuse for making exceptions to the Church's privacy policy. They may be few, but I think there are circumstances in which the ethical thing to do is to toss privacy out the window.

[rug]

15. That's not what this amendment is about.

You're essentially reciting the Tarasoff standard which allows reporting of a patient's danger to others.

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/docs/Tarasoff.pdf#search=%22Tarasoff%20v.%20Regents%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California%22

This amendment is about an Australian Anglican priest's ability to break the Seal of Confession to report a purported crime against the penitent.

Much different things involving many different ethical concerns.