Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think there's probably a better way to do this. I'm not Christian, but I'm strongly against any proposal to put anyone under any obligation to report what they hear in a confessional. It defeats the purpose of the confessional: priests simply wont confess anymore. Given that they obviously believe they can get away with it, and the entire point of a confessional is effectively to stop sin by producing feelings of guilt, having a confidential confession would actually deter sex offences.

Rather, I think it might be best to actually convince the Papacy to change this, by removing the need for priests to be celibate and by, possibly, forbidding priests from confessing at all

Confidential confessions have allowed Irish priests to rape children for ages.

I think that maybe you're confused.

[Genivaria]

Its not even secular-Christian really.
Its people who consider the RCC to be above the law against those who say noone is above the law.
You don't have to be anti-Christian or anti-Catholic to support this law, you just have to be anti-Rape.

Priests cannot reveal what is said in Confession under any circumstances. Investigations can be pursued in other fields and the Church can (and should) help reveal criminals, but tradition and doctrine are above the government.

No there not.
We don't allow Islamic honor killings in our country why should we allow rapists to be protected?
Tradition and Doctrine are pathetic reasons.

[Central Slavia]

I think there's probably a better way to do this. I'm not Christian, but I'm strongly against any proposal to put anyone under any obligation to report what they hear in a confessional. It defeats the purpose of the confessional: priests simply wont confess anymore. Given that they obviously believe they can get away with it, and the entire point of a confessional is effectively to stop sin by producing feelings of guilt, having a confidential confession would actually deter sex offences.

Rather, I think it might be best to actually convince the Papacy to change this, by removing the need for priests to be celibate and by, possibly, forbidding priests from confessing at all

Confidential confessions have allowed Irish priests to rape children for ages.

I think that maybe you're confused.

Uh, confidential confessions have "allowed" for a lot of other crimes.
Have you actually thought about the fact that the guarantee of confidentiality is one of the reasons why such people aren't afraid to go to confession?
Also, the person in question can easily go to confess anywhere and nobody asks you for a name or anything such. As such , it's impossible to levy a charge against a priest for not disclosing a confessional secret because he can deny the person ever being there, and it's very unlikely anyone'll be able to prove otherwise. So , the law is just a bit of paper designed to shut some people up, while accomplishing nothing.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Confidential confessions have allowed Irish priests to rape children for ages.

I think that maybe you're confused.

Uh, confidential confessions have "allowed" for a lot of other crimes.
Have you actually thought about the fact that the guarantee of confidentiality is one of the reasons why such people aren't afraid to go to confession?
Also, the person in question can easily go to confess anywhere and nobody asks you for a name or anything such. As such , it's impossible to levy a charge against a priest for not disclosing a confessional secret because he can deny the person ever being there, and it's very unlikely anyone'll be able to prove otherwise. So , the law is just a bit of paper designed to shut some people up, while accomplishing nothing.

Why yes, I have thought that because they believe that god forgives them for their sin because they confessed that they feel "free" and are thus allowed to walk free and rape more kids.

See, Confession is good for the soul. Because you don't carry all that nasty guilt you have over ruining some child's life.

[Central Slavia]

Uh, confidential confessions have "allowed" for a lot of other crimes.
Have you actually thought about the fact that the guarantee of confidentiality is one of the reasons why such people aren't afraid to go to confession?
Also, the person in question can easily go to confess anywhere and nobody asks you for a name or anything such. As such , it's impossible to levy a charge against a priest for not disclosing a confessional secret because he can deny the person ever being there, and it's very unlikely anyone'll be able to prove otherwise. So , the law is just a bit of paper designed to shut some people up, while accomplishing nothing.

Why yes, I have thought that because they believe that god forgives them for their sin because they confessed that they feel "free" and are thus allowed to walk free and rape more kids.

See, Confession is good for the soul. Because you don't carry all that nasty guilt you have over ruining some child's life.

That isn't how confession works.
In fact if you intend to repeat the sin, or don't make prescribed amends, when you confess, you aren't eligible for absolution or it's invalid (if the priest didn't know)

[Dyakovo]

Its not even secular-Christian really.
Its people who consider the RCC to be above the law against those who say noone is above the law.
You don't have to be anti-Christian or anti-Catholic to support this law, you just have to be anti-Rape.

Priests cannot reveal what is said in Confession under any circumstances. Investigations can be pursued in other fields and the Church can (and should) help reveal criminals, but tradition and doctrine are above the government.

Nope, sorry. There's nothing special about the RCC, well except for their promotion of child rape, which is hardly something to be celebrated.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why yes, I have thought that because they believe that god forgives them for their sin because they confessed that they feel "free" and are thus allowed to walk free and rape more kids.

See, Confession is good for the soul. Because you don't carry all that nasty guilt you have over ruining some child's life.

That isn't how confession works.
In fact if you intend to repeat the sin, or don't make prescribed amends, when you confess, you aren't eligible for absolution or it's invalid (if the priest didn't know)

Congratulations, you have described exactly why the existing process is never going to work. Maybe we should try actual laws instead of proscriptive hope.

[Rachemetallundglock]

Hmm, it's a good start... now, we just need to kick all the Catholics out and we'll have something. A church that didn't throw child-rapers to the lions doesn't deserve to exist.

[Risottia]

...tradition and doctrine are above the government.

...Says the Catholic Church.
Says the country, law trumps religion.

[Abatael]

This is an appalling violation of the Seal of the Confessional.

This, under no circumstances, acceptable. There is absolutely no circumstance, under which they may disclose what is told to them. (And I am using "absolutely" with it real definition, not for emphasis.) They are never, by word, by sign or any other manner, are to betray the sinner for any reason, including child molestation.

Because there exists no word in the English lexicon to describe how abominably execrable this is, one must use the Latin nefas to become remotely close to the inadmissibility of violating the Seal of the Confessional.

This priest-penitent privilege outweighs any other form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. The seal is inviolable. It is a crime itself for a confessor, in any way to betray a penitent, by word or in any other manner or for any reason. A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life. He cannot be compelled by law to discloe a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action, because the confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would displease the penitent or reveal his identity.

The priests would do right to ignore such laws: the demands of the law of God outweigh the demands of civil law.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is an appalling violation of the Seal of the Confessional.

This, under no circumstances, acceptable. There is absolutely no circumstance, under which they may disclose what is told to them. (And I am using "absolutely" with it real definition, not for emphasis.) They are never, by word, by sign or any other manner, are to betray the sinner for any reason, including child molestation.

Because there exists no word in the English lexicon to describe how abominably execrable this is, one must use the Latin nefas to become remotely close to the inadmissibility of violating the Seal of the Confessional.

This priest-penitent privilege outweighs any other form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. The seal is inviolable. It is a crime itself for a confessor, in any way to betray a penitent, by word or in any other manner or for any reason. A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life. He cannot be compelled by law to discloe a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action, because the confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would displease the penitent or reveal his identity.

The priests would do right to ignore such laws: the demands of the law of God outweigh the demands of civil law.

Thats fine. But then they will pay the consequences if caught. Same as the child sacrifice crowd.
And it wont be a crime once they change the law now will it.

[Abatael]

...tradition and doctrine are above the government.

...Says the Catholic Church.
Says the country, law trumps religion.

What the state says is of no concern, in relation to the word of God. Any priest, who is moral, should rather die than betray the penitent.

[Abatael]

This is an appalling violation of the Seal of the Confessional.

This, under no circumstances, acceptable. There is absolutely no circumstance, under which they may disclose what is told to them. (And I am using "absolutely" with it real definition, not for emphasis.) They are never, by word, by sign or any other manner, are to betray the sinner for any reason, including child molestation.

Because there exists no word in the English lexicon to describe how abominably execrable this is, one must use the Latin nefas to become remotely close to the inadmissibility of violating the Seal of the Confessional.

This priest-penitent privilege outweighs any other form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. The seal is inviolable. It is a crime itself for a confessor, in any way to betray a penitent, by word or in any other manner or for any reason. A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life. He cannot be compelled by law to discloe a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action, because the confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would displease the penitent or reveal his identity.

The priests would do right to ignore such laws: the demands of the law of God outweigh the demands of civil law.

Thats fine. But then they will pay the consequences if caught. Same as the child sacrifice crowd.

"A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life."

[Ostroeuropa]

...Says the Catholic Church.
Says the country, law trumps religion.

What the state says is of no concern, in relation to the word of God. Any priest, who is moral, should rather die than betray the penitent.

Then whats the problem?
It's almost as if they'll obey the law if it passes...maybe they don't believe in it enough to break the law.

[Dyakovo]

This is an appalling violation of the Seal of the Confessional.

This, under no circumstances, acceptable. There is absolutely no circumstance, under which they may disclose what is told to them. (And I am using "absolutely" with it real definition, not for emphasis.) They are never, by word, by sign or any other manner, are to betray the sinner for any reason, including child molestation.

Yes, we already know the RCC approves of child molestation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Thats fine. But then they will pay the consequences if caught. Same as the child sacrifice crowd.

"A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life."

They are asking to change the law, and the discussion is about why the priests are complaining about the proposed change.
Also source.

[Capitolinium]

And here I was hoping it would be a story about priests in Australia about to be buggered.

You have very odd tastes in genre. What else interests you?

[Abatael]

What the state says is of no concern, in relation to the word of God. Any priest, who is moral, should rather die than betray the penitent.

Then whats the problem?
It's almost as if they'll obey the law if it passes...maybe they don't believe in it enough to break the law.

The problem is the government thinks it can violate this Seal; it cannot and will not.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then whats the problem?
It's almost as if they'll obey the law if it passes...maybe they don't believe in it enough to break the law.

The problem is the government thinks it can violate this Seal; it cannot and will not.

If a club aids and abett a crime because their club rules demand it, that's fine. We can't change their rules.
But we CAN punish them for it. And that is what will be done.
Yes, a priest may be thrown out of the church for disobeying church doctrine. We don't care. We'll punish them for breaking the law.

[Dyakovo]

Then whats the problem?
It's almost as if they'll obey the law if it passes...maybe they don't believe in it enough to break the law.

The problem is the government thinks it can violate this Seal; it cannot and will not.

Fixed that for you.

[Great Nepal]

Then whats the problem?
It's almost as if they'll obey the law if it passes...maybe they don't believe in it enough to break the law.

The problem is the government thinks it can violate this Seal; it cannot and will not.

Of course it cant.
What it can do is demand priest disclose child molesters and punish them for not complying with court order; just like there is law against honour killing but people can do it... then face force of the law.

[Threlizdun]

Good to know the rule of law is being upheld.

[Revolutopia]

A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life.

And that is all pretty disgusting.

This makes me glad, I have long been disapproving that Catholic Priests seem to receive unfair protection from having to provide information in said cases.

[Abatael]

"A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to avert a public calamity, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice, or even to save his life."

They are asking to change the law, and the discussion is about why the priests are complaining about the proposed change.
Also source.

No, it is not. The discussion is about the law in general and anything related to the law. There was nothing prohibiting this discussion to that only.

Code of Canon Law, 983 Section 1: The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray, in any way, a penitent, in words or in any manner and for any reason.

[Raeyh]

The problem is the government thinks it can violate this Seal; it cannot and will not.

If a club aids and abett a crime because their club rules demand it, that's fine. We can't change their rules.
But we CAN punish them for it. And that is what will be done.
Yes, a priest may be thrown out of the church for disobeying church doctrine. We don't care. We'll punish them for breaking the law.

Well, to compel someone to violate client confidentiality, you need a subpoena. You can't just expect people to do it on their own.