Publication of the IICSA final report was reported here, along with initial responses from the Church of England.
Other religious bodies:
Church Times news reports:
Earlier in the month, the Church of England announced this: Further work on Seal of Confessional:
The House of Bishops has commissioned further work on the Seal of the Confessional, building on the report and interim statement from the previous working party published in 2018/2019 and originally set up in 2014.
The new working group will take account of relevant findings, if any, that there may be in the final report from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), due to be published on October 20.
The group which will meet over the next 12 months will bring together theologians, Church leaders and safeguarding professionals along with other advisers as part of the wider reference group. The voices and experiences of survivors will be critical to this work and will be included, but not named, in the group…
Forward in Faith also issued a Statement on IICSA’s final report and the Seal of Confession.
Forward in Faith: “we feel deeply uneasy at a secular body seeking to impinge on the administration of the Church’s sacraments”
I am sure there are sincere reasons for retaining the seal of the confessional. They deserve listening to respectfully.
My view is that child abuse IS a secular matter, wherever it occurs, and protection of children is a secular matter and imperative. A duty to report crimes against children to the secular authorities under any circumstances is a secular responsibility of ALL citizens.
The child comes first.
We discussed this issue recently on another thread and my view, for what it is worth, was that the IICSA report was totally silent on the subject of the seal of the confessional and, specifically, priests (and clergy of any denomination) were not included in the ‘mandated reporters’ defined in the IICSA recommendations. So I’m not sure that FIF have interpreted that correctly. Something disclosed in the confessional would have to come to the knowledge of a mandated reporter through some other intermediate source – frankly impossible to envisage (unless either the priest or the confessing person breached the seal).… Read more »
Bearing in mind the prominent part that church based CSA played in the enquiry, I am surprised that priests, church youth workers, church safeguarding officers, and other such religious roles are not recommended for inclusion in the list of mandated reporters.
There is a danger here that the confessional becomes a distracting red herring, as I would imagine that the vast majority of disclosures or suspicions of CSA would arise in non sacramental contexts.
I think IICSA has not considered it within its mandate to make a recommendation about the seal of the confessional which, so far as the C of E is concerned, is already under review. I understand the Church’s present stance is to withhold absolution if during confession the person confessing a serious crime refuses to report it. The priest remains bound by the seal. There has been a recent amendment to the Sexual Offences 2003, section 22A added this year. It isn’t practical to quote all of the relevant provisions of the Act (easily accessible on HMG Legislation website), but… Read more »
Thank you Rowland. That information about the updated legislation is helpful.
Is this right Rowland? As I read it many, if not most clergy would be caught in the category of undertaking regulated activity with Children (else how would they be eligible for DBS Barred List searches, which the CofE clearly states are appropriate for all licensed/PTO clergy?).
Many would also be caught by the newly-inserted 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which widened the definition of ‘positions of trust.
See immediately above about section 22A. I need to stress (to you and Simon Dawson) that my original comment was solely directed to the question asked, which was about the seal of the confessional. I accept that I should have made this clearer! Also this was essentially a follow-up to an earlier discussion with Susannah on the previous IICSA thread – 20 October 2022.
I looked at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and concluded that it did not apply to the specific subject of the confessional. I’m aware that the Act otherwise figures in the definition of mandated reporters.
This is an issue that has come up constantly in the USA, especially regarding the sexual abuse scandal within the Roman Catholic church. Here, the clergy privilege is enshrined in the Bar Association’s code of ethics, followed by the courts in every jurisdiction. And it applies not only to the formalities of the Rite of Reconciliation, but to virtually any communication between a clergy person (of any religion or denomination) and a member of his congregation. Such communications are automatically considered privileged, whether they occur in the confessional or the corner pub, so long as they are sufficiently private.
I lack the wisdom to comment helpfully on this issue.
I wonder if the discourse about ‘seal of the confession’ is too problematically loaded to be helpful, and so in need of some deeper theological philosophical and therapeutic reflection. Let me indicate briefly a direction for possible exploration. The discourse of the ‘seal of the confessional’ can be surrounded by a mystique of secrecy, which can be used to give a certain professional power to clergy – namely the authority to ‘forgive’ sins (on God’s behalf). But what is this forgiveness? We frame forgiveness with all-too-simple metaphors – such as the economic metaphor of debt release (as with the metaphor… Read more »
Among other religious bodies, the United Reformed Church has also responded:
https://urc.org.uk/iicsa-publishes-final-report/
Thanks, will add to OP.
For information, the recent Tablet magazine of 29 October published a long article on IICSA and the seal of the Confessional. I think two interesting quotes are as follows. Firstly, whilst comment on TA suggested that IICSA was silent on this matter, the Tablet said “while canon law insists on the confidentiality of the confessional – the “seal” – the IICSA wants English law to insist that priests must break that seal to inform the police when they hear that a child is being abused. While the mandatory reporting recommendation is a generic one, affecting all organisations and institutions, the… Read more »
I would be interested to learn where it is stated in the IICSA Report, as asserted by The Tablet, that there should be no religious exemptions to the reporting duty, specifically in the context of the confessional. Due to other commitments, it is not feasible for me to read the report in its entirety. These are the recommendations in the IICSA report in relation to ‘mandated reporters’ and it follows that reporting duties must be consistent with them: “The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’: • any person working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding… Read more »
I agree with your concerns, Simon, and how the public will perceive a Church will protects and fails to report child abusers.
My view: the child must come first.
That includes future children too, because having worked with sex offenders, significant numbers suffer from compulsion they fail to control, and so another child may fall victim.
Child abuse should always be reported.
It seems inconceivable that it wouldn’t be.