Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Saint Jade IV]

I'm a Roman Catholic and, ironically enough, been planning on joining the priesthood.

I don't like the law itself. Breaking privilege like that, for just one case, that makes it weak. If nothing else, attorney-client privilege needs to be preserved (for a fair trial). With the supporters of this law going as they are (child molestation being the gravest evil), why not make lawyers responsible for not informing on child molesters? Sure, attorney-client privilege, but what /is/ more important? Fair trials, or saving children?

Okay. So my alternative, because, hell, why not have something to replace what I'm tearing down.

Talk to Pell (because sure, nobody really likes him outside of the church, but he does have a fair bit of influence in the church) or whoever's the head of the Australian Bishops' conference. Negotiate with them. You've got this law (and hell, because there's no way to enforce it, require confessionals to be recorded, and have the data stored and only accessible with a court order), but you've also got some power to stop it, yes? So beat them with the carrot - they require 'grievous criminal acts' or whatever you want to call it, including child molestation, to include confessing to the police for absolution. At this point, you've got two possible reactions (we're assuming that these people are going to confession because they believe, because there is otherwise no real point to doing so): Either they do it, and it all works out well, in which case you don't have to bother with making a law, or they don't do it or it doesn't work out well, in which case, you've already got your law plotted out.

So, unsurprisingly, your alternative is to trust the church to do what it has shown itself to be unwilling to do (thus the need for this law).

But Dya, this time they promise to do the right thing. Honest. Trust them.

[Dyakovo]

Yes it does, it requires them to cover up for their fellow child-molesters.

No, you misunderstand me.

To falsely accuse someone of breaking this law does not require you to perjure yourself, while falsely accusing someone of perjury requires perjury.

No, falsely accusing someone of perjury does not require the accuser to perjure themselves.
You're just thrashing about looking for any possible excuse to help maintain the RC priesthood's culture of child rape, aren't you?

[Dyakovo]

So, unsurprisingly, your alternative is to trust the church to do what it has shown itself to be unwilling to do (thus the need for this law).

But Dya, this time they promise to do the right thing. Honest. Trust them.

Oh, of course... Now that Darth Paedo is the pope their policy of tacit endorsement of child rape will change, just ignore the fact that it has already come to light that he was complicit in cover-ups...

[Khornate Worshippers]

No, you misunderstand me.

To falsely accuse someone of breaking this law does not require you to perjure yourself, while falsely accusing someone of perjury requires perjury.

No, falsely accusing someone of perjury does not require the accuser to perjure themselves.
You're just thrashing about looking for any possible excuse to help maintain the RC priesthood's culture of child rape, aren't you?

Okay. Let's break it down, so you can understand it better.

If Person A says to Person B that they do not collect bees, and Person A claims in court that fact, for Person B to act as a witness against Person A would be perjury.

Under this law, if Person A did NOT confess to the crime in a confessional, and said to Person B that they DID, Person B can witness to Person C (the priest)'s failure to report, despite the witness being incorrect, and not be perjuring themselves, nor would the priest have any way to defend himself.

[Dyakovo]

No, falsely accusing someone of perjury does not require the accuser to perjure themselves.
You're just thrashing about looking for any possible excuse to help maintain the RC priesthood's culture of child rape, aren't you?

Okay. Let's break it down, so you can understand it better.

If Person A says to Person B that they do not collect bees, and Person A claims in court that fact, for Person B to act as a witness against Person A would be perjury.

Under this law, if Person A did NOT confess to the crime in a confessional, and said to Person B that they DID, Person B can witness to Person C (the priest)'s failure to report, despite the witness being incorrect, and not be perjuring themselves, nor would the priest have any way to defend himself.

This post makes two things abundantly clear...
1: You have no clue what perjury is, and
2: you have no clue how criminal accusations are handled.

Actually, make that three things...
3: I was right, you're desperate to find anything to excuse the culture of child rape.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Fuckem.
Seperation of church and state, they have no authority to say HURPDURP but our beliefs!
They are a national stamp collecting society. They have as much say on the law as it does.

The way it should be.

So, unsurprisingly, your alternative is to trust the church to do what it has shown itself to be unwilling to do (thus the need for this law).

The law is unenforceable. Unless you plan to put cameras in there (which has its own problems) there is no way to do it, and unless you hide them (which, I believe, is illegal under Australian law) there will be no gain from it anyway.

Like any law there is a certain element of fear aiding in it being followed.

There have been cases where a pedophile has been discovered and it has been discovered the Church knew of it - either a single priest confessed to or the hierarchy learning of it and not acting/covering it up.

As such in future, if the law is in place, and it is discovered a priest broke the law by not acting on information they had about someone else committing this crime they will also be looking at a legal penalty - plus the increased PR damage of yet another priest or individual being covered for by the Church.

Now perhaps someone will go "but priests are brave and aren't going to be cowed into surrendering a criminal just because they are legally obliged to! They will let that pedophile going on their way because it is their sacred duty!" to which I say - history shows plenty of times that isn't the case. If the Church and individual priests think they could legitimately end up facing legal penalty for failing to report plenty will report.

Do any of yall know anything about the Catholic faith? Confession is a sacrament where people confess their sins to be forgiven. It is hard enough for people to receive without the threat of being reported. Priest might encourage the people to turn themselves in but it is not right for them to go around telling everyone someone else's sins. If a bad person that committed a crime such as rape or murder went to confession, which is highly unlikely since they would most likely not be devout Catholics, it would be that they are truely sorry and would most likely want to turn themselves in.

First - I think you should have a look at the history of crime and confession. People do confess to crimes in the box but not to the police.

Second - uh huh. Because priests are the best ones to decide whether the man or woman earnestly sitting next to them apologizing profusely and swearing never to do it again are on the level and indeed unlikely to do it again.

So Roman Catholic priests, in a rather ironic twist, are claiming that proposed new laws will violate their most sacred and sacrosanct beliefs, by requiring priests to break the confessional seal and engage in the same mandatory reporting that every other profession is bound by.

Basically, if a priest confesses to paedophilia, they are required to report said priest to the authorities.

I'm unsure what the problem is.

The problem is that the seal of the confessional is absolute, no matter what is confessed to. If someone confesses to murder, the priest can only try to convince him to give himself up, not report it to the police. Why should certain crimes be treated differently?

They shouldn't, but baby steps. Plus certain crimes have an increased likelihood of being repeated. Not everyone is a serial killer for example - someone comes in an says "in a fit of rage I killed the man who was sleeping with my wife"? They aren't probably going to kill again and they will probably get caught as who kill, kidnap or hit and run often get caught. Theft on the other hand? Or pedophilia? Note those priests that got caught and are forever coming out of the woodwork usually weren't a case of "touched a kid once", they were a "over 10 years molested dozens of children".

Coupled with the Church's poor record on removing them...

And it is only absolute because the Church says it is absolute.

Not so, we discovered a few priests who confessed to other priests during the big scandal.
Things like this occasionally come out.
Yes, a lot will slip through the cracks, but the ones that don't we can act upon.
Like where the priest is stupid enough to admit it.

In which case, we're still relying on luck.

So you can't imagine police do their jobs well enough to be able to learn, at least some of the time, when this happens? How is it in the past we know pedophile priests have gone to confession, that a priest has taken it and done nothing with it (except maybe inform someone within the church)?

Perhaps you are imagining a he says/she says situation where they have the suspect and he is spilling the beans and says he went to confession, and the priest says "no he didn't!" The suspect gets nothing out of the accusation. The priest can lie if it is true of course - do you imagine priests doing that?

[Samuraikoku]

I've always found the confessional seal meaningless (this differs with the confidentiality of doctor-patient and attorney-client, which I find wholly justified), so I can't say I'm bothered.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

I kinda agree with whoever suggested that part of the penance would involve turning the errant 'dre in. Besides, I don't even think it's possible:

Can. 977 The absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death.

Note that pedophilia is a sin against the sixth commandment (against adultery).

EDIT: Seriously, the title of the OP's a rickroll waiting to happen.

[Dyakovo]

I kinda agree with whoever suggested that part of the penance would involve turning the errant 'dre in. Besides, I don't even think it's possible:

Can. 977 The absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death.

Note that pedophilia is a sin against the sixth commandment (against adultery).

Surprise, surprise... Another RC in favor of continuing the priesthood's culture of child rape...
Do you also have a vested interest in allowing this to continue?

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Unless that pederast is dying a (what IMO would probably be well-deserved) slow and painful death, he can't confess that sort of thing. His confreres can ensure his ass is grass any time.

[Nidaria]

A priest is not allowed to disclose what is said in Confession under any circumstances.

[Jinos]

I do not see how the confessional seal is any different from attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality.

Doctor patient confidentiality is not infinite. Doctors must report patients who have broken the law. I think you misunderstand what the confidentiality is suppose to cover in that case.

Attorney-Client privilege is different and broader because of its nature, the seeking of legal advice. However, if an Attorney believes their legal advice is being used to allow further crime, that isn't covered. Attorney-Client privilege is also not infinite.

So logically, since the catholic church has hidden and protected child molesters, many of whom probably went on to further molest again, the government has finally stepped in to end the infinite protection apparently granted by confessional seal.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

I do not see how the confessional seal is any different from attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality.

Doctor patient confidentiality is not infinite. Doctors must report patients who have broken the law. I think you misunderstand what the confidentiality is suppose to cover in that case.

Attorney-Client privilege is different and broader because of its nature, the seeking of legal advice. However, if an Attorney believes their legal advice is being used to allow further crime, that isn't covered. Attorney-Client privilege is also not infinite.

So logically, since the catholic church has hidden and protected child molesters, many of whom probably went on to further molest again, the government has finally stepped in to end the infinite protection apparently granted by confessional seal.

Well, it doesn't really matter if the errant pederast tries to confess it--he can't get anything from confessing to pedophilia because he cannot be absolved as per the CIC. There is no real question here.

A priest is not allowed to disclose what is said in Confession under any circumstances.

Neither can he grant absolution to the errant confrere.

[New Waterford]

A priest is not allowed to disclose what is said in Confession under any circumstances.

^
This

[Central Slavia]

So Roman Catholic priests, in a rather ironic twist, are claiming that proposed new laws will violate their most sacred and sacrosanct beliefs, by requiring priests to break the confessional seal and engage in the same mandatory reporting that every other profession is bound by.

Basically, if a priest confesses to paedophilia, they are required to report said priest to the authorities.

I'm unsure what the problem is.

The problem is that the confessional seal is sacred, to the extent that the priest divulging the content or someone overhearing the confession can make it invalid.
The law is also unenforceable - there are no logs of who goes to confession where, (Hell ,in a confessional booth it's not even well visible who's in , and the priest won't ask you for a name) and if a priest is questioned about the content of one, he can deny everything (I didn't know the one I was listening to was a priest)
I'm as much against religion as it goes but this is just dumb

[Jinos]

Doctor patient confidentiality is not infinite. Doctors must report patients who have broken the law. I think you misunderstand what the confidentiality is suppose to cover in that case.

Attorney-Client privilege is different and broader because of its nature, the seeking of legal advice. However, if an Attorney believes their legal advice is being used to allow further crime, that isn't covered. Attorney-Client privilege is also not infinite.

So logically, since the catholic church has hidden and protected child molesters, many of whom probably went on to further molest again, the government has finally stepped in to end the infinite protection apparently granted by confessional seal.

Well, it doesn't really matter if the errant pederast tries to confess it--he can't get anything from confessing to pedophilia because he cannot be absolved as per the CIC. There is no real question here.

Is that suppose to be some sort of technicality or something? Because the catholic church has been protecting known pedophiles, I would call that "getting something" from confession.

[Totalise]

it's interesting how government tells the church to stay out of state affairs but the state refuses to extend the same curtacy to the church.................... intresting anyone else see a contridiction here?

[Globocom Enterprises]

The only thing not to like, is now the "guilty party" can simply point a finger at someone and say "I told them" and now two parties are guilty.

What a great and legal way to use a witchunt to bring someone else you don't like - down with you.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Well, it doesn't really matter if the errant pederast tries to confess it--he can't get anything from confessing to pedophilia because he cannot be absolved as per the CIC. There is no real question here.

Is that suppose to be some sort of technicality or something? Because the catholic church has been protecting known pedophiles, I would call that "getting something" from confession.

In some cases, that "protection" involves being kicked upstairs, where the errant can't do jack...

BUT I DIGRESS.

I wouldn't really call it a technicality...

[Central Slavia]

What people are not understanding in this issue is that the seal of the confessional is at the absolute center of the Catholic Church's sacramental understanding of confession. Any priest who breaks this seal, regardless of the state's desires, will be excommunicating himself (cf. Canon 1388, section 1: "A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.). Priests are expected to martyr themselves before they violate the seal (see the death of St. John of Nepomuk who rather died than tell a king what the queen had said in confession).

Then they can martyr themselves.

Also, if Catholic priests are allowed to hold steadfast to the sacrament of confession, should it not then follow that those who hold the priesthood within the Fundamentalist Mormon Church be allowed to hold the sacrament of plural spouses? This sacrament of plural marriage is as sacred to them as the sacrament of confession is to Catholic priests, and just as much a part of the fabric of their faith.

Mormonism doesn't mandate plural spouses, it allows them.
In the same way that most faiths allow you to fart in a full public bus, but you might choose not to, those Mormons living in the USA are allowed by their faith to have multiple spouses, just that the law forbids it.

On the other hand, confessional secrecy is mandated. This is pretty much the equivalent of banning circumcision for Jews, or mandating the consumption of a beef burger per day to a Hinduist

[Raeyh]

A priest is not allowed to disclose what is said in Confession under any circumstances.

^
This

Psychologists are also supposed to not disclose anything, but that doesn't stop them from turning in their clients if they consider them a danger to others.

[Great Nepal]

...So, basically they are complaining that they can not let criminals who are danger to society and children to walk around free?

it's interesting how government tells the church to stay out of state affairs but the state refuses to extend the same curtacy to the church.................... intresting anyone else see a contridiction here?

No, not really.
State is above church; therefore it has right to make laws which affects church.

[The De Danann Nation]

Fuckem.
Seperation of church and state, they have no authority to say HURPDURP but our beliefs!
They are a national stamp collecting society. They have as much say on the law as it does.

Tell 'em how it is.

[Dyakovo]

A priest is not allowed to disclose what is said in Confession under any circumstances.

^
This

Two more for the pro- child rape caucus...

[Tairoth]

Religion is pathetic created by some very smart men....

but no matter how smart they where they are the reason Humanity isn't any more advanced

and non of these religious wars would be going on

Religion is a false reality